Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3557; Calavera Hills Phase II Bridge Retaining Walls; Calavera Hills Phase II Bridge Retaining Walls; 2008-07-02GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS Certified MBE Gcotechnirji Eis^incrring Ci-ithsv Eaftiiijtiiikc Engineeritijf Matrriah Tatitif^ 6* Inspfcthn May 13, 2008 (Revised 7-2-08) Simon Wong Engineering 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92131 Attention: Mr. James Frost Subject: As-Built Evaluation of Type 5 Retaining Walls And Remediial Recommendations Carlsbad Boulevard Overhead (Bridge No. 57C-134) Carlsbad, California Dear James: In response to your request, we are pleased to present our as-built evaluation and remedial recommendations for the Caltrans Standard Type 5 retaiming walls constructed adjacent to Bent 2 during seismic retrofit of the Carlsbad/Boulevard Overhead Bridge. The walls experienced excessive lateral movements'following a -watef-line break in the wall bacl<fill. The bridge is located along Carlsbad Boulevard approximately 0.6 mile northwesterly of Carlsbad Village Drive (see Figure 1). LO INTRODaCTION Ll Existing Type 5 Walls Type 5 retaining walls were constructed to retain the abutment slope east and west of the Bent 2 footing retrofit. The Type 5 wall west of Bent 2 has a total length of 32 feet and has a stepped footing with bottom of footing elevations of El. -f 26.5 and 24.5 feet, and the Type 5 wall east of Bent 2 has a total length of 12 feet and bottom of footing elevation of El. -1-27.5 feet. Wall design height is 8 feet, with a 6.5 foot wide footing, and the slope behind the wails is about 2h: Iv. Footings are embedded at least 4 feet in a fill slope, and founded as much as several feet above the adjacent track grades. The as-built foundation plan is shown in Figure 2, and typical wall sections and profiles are illustrated in Figures 3A through 3E. 1.2 Wall Movement We understand that an irrigation line break occurred in the slope above the walls, and that significant wall movements were observed subsequent to the water line break. We further understand that the contractor did not install the drainage system behind the wall as required by the Standard Plans. The offset at the joint between face of mng wall and infill wall at Bent 2 was observed, and a summary of approximate observed wing wall movements is as follows: 92Argonaul, Suite 120 A Aliso Viejo, Californi.! 92656-4121 • (949) 609-1020roi'ci' • (949) 609-1030/flA- Torrance. Ciilifrani.i A (310) .120-5100 _ San Diego, California A (858)524-1.™ u'ww.GroupDelta.coin /\s-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Page 2 Wing Wall Horizontal ( Dffset (inches) Vertical Offset Wing Wall Top of Wall Bottom of Footing Top of Wall East 3.5 1.0 2.25 West L7 1.0 1.0 Figure 4 illustrates the approximate' movements of the wall with the greatest movement, the east wing wall, based on these measurements. Figure 5 shows photographs of the east and west wall movenients relative to the bridge pier. Based on site observations, erosion and gullying occurred within the wall backfill and slope below the footing as a result of the water leakage, a large void was present along the gas line in the wall backfill, and it appears that subsurface erosion or piping may have also occurred within the slope retained by the wall and supporting the footing. Cracks were noted in the wall backfill, as well as separations between the concrete gutter and back side of the walls. Photographs illustrating the erosion and/or piping are shown in Figure 6. GROUP DELTA COXSUl.TA.VTS 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose of the investigation was to investigate subsurface conditions below the subject wall footings, to develop hypotheses regarding the cause of the wall movements, and to develop recommendations for remediation. Our scope of work included: • Review of compaction test data from wall construction (Testing Engineers San Diego, TESD); • Review of existing geotechnical data and reports by Group Delta and rSinyo and Moore: o Group Delta Consultants, May 23, 1997, "Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Local Agency Seismic Retrofit Project, Bridge No. 57C-134, Carlsbad Overhead, San Diego County, California, Caltrans Contract No. 59Y025, Group Delta Project No. 1-111," prepared for Moffat and Nichol Engineers; o Ninyo & Moore, December 4, 2007, "Geotechnical Evaluation, Carlsbad Boulevard Railroad Overcrossing Slope, Carlsbad, California," Prepared for City of Carlsbad Public Works Engineering, ProjectNo. 106214001. • Perform subsurface investigation and laboratory testing; • Perform engineering analyses to characterize current subsurface conditions, develop hypotheses as to the cause of the observed movements, and to develop conclusions and recommendations for remediation; • Presentation of our findings and recommendations in this report. ri:\Projects\_A\AllOCM!47 Sinnon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\Wal] FailureM147-As-Built Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 \Mng Walls (rev 7-2-08).doc /\s-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Page 3 2.1 Field Investigation The field investigation was conducted on March 20, 2008 by performing two test pit excavations, three Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPTs) using the Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (Triggs Technologies, Inc.), and three hand auger borings. Sand Cone field density tests were made in each test pit at the bottom of footing elevation. The slope profiles below the wall were estimated by tape and hand-level measurements. Locations of the explorations are shown in Figure 2. Logs of the test pits, hand-auger borings, and DCPTs are presented in Appendix A. Selected photographs of our field investigation are shown in Figure 7. 2.1.1 Test Pits Two test pits (TP-1 and TP-2) were hand excavated in front of the east and west wing walls, respectively, at the joint between the Bent 2 bridge pier and the Type 5 walls. Test pits TP-1 and TP-2 were excavated from the existing ground surface to the bottom of Type 5 Wall footing at depths of 4 feet anid 6 feet, respectively. The trench walls were stable at near vertical inclination and no caving was observed. The horizontal offsets at the joint between walls and bridge piers were measured with a tape. Field density tests (sand cone) were performed at the bottom of footing level in each test pit. Bulk samples were collected from the test pits, sealed in plastic bags, and transported to the laboratory for further examination and testing. The pits were backfilled with the excavated soils and hand tamped in layers to the original grades. 2.1.2 DCPTs GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests were performed at two locations along the front of the west wing wall, and at one location in front of the east wing wall. The DCPTs involve placing a sacrificial conical steel tip 1.4 inches in diameter with a 90 degree apex and 10 cm^ projected area onto a 1.1 inch diameter steel rod, and driving into the ground using repeated blows of an un-motorized (hand-raised) hammer with a 35 Ib. weight and 15 inch drop. The rods are marked each 10 cm of length, and the hammer blows to drive the cone each 10 cm are counted and recorded. Additional rods are screwed onto the string as the cone is advanced. A fluid injection system pumps a cellulose / water mixture into the annulus between the 1.4" cone path and 1.1" diameter rods, minimizing parasitic friction on the rods. The dynamic cone resistance is calculated by the "Dutch Formula," and the cone resistance is correlated with the Standard Penetration Test Blowcount or "N-Value," which is used to estimate the relative density of cohesionless soils, or the consistency of cohesive soils. The DCPT does not obtain any soil samples. M:\ProjectsVA\M10CM147 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\WaQ FailureMl47-As-Built Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 Wing Walls (rev 7-2-08),doc /\s-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Page 4 DCPT-1 and DCPT-2 were advanced from existing grades at points 5 feet and 21 feet from the west end of the west wing wall to depths of 10.5 feet and 16.4 feet, respectively. DCPT-3 was advanced at the location of Test Pit TP-1, after the test pit had been excavated and backfilled. 2.1.3 Hand-Auger Borings Hand auger borings were drilled with a 3 inch diameter hand auger. Borings HA-1, HA-2, and HA-3 were advanced to depths of 6, 15, and 5 feet at the locations of DCPT-1, 2, and 3, respectively, by augering down the same hole created by the DCPT. HA-1 and HA-3 reached shallow refusal due to large gravels or concrete debris. Samples of cuttings and hand drive samples were collected at selected intervals to classify the soils and correlate the soil type with relative densities from SPT N-Values estimated with the DCPT. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on selected samples, and included the following tests: • Moisture content and dry density; • Grain Size Distribution and Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve; • Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D1557). The results of laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B. 2.3 Previous Investigations and Data Borings and laboratory test results from previous investigations by Group Delta and Ninyo & Moore are included in Appendices C and D, respectively. Construction test data from Testing Engineers San Diego (TESD) are include in Appendix E. DELTA G0.V.SUI,TANTS N:\Projects\_AV\I10Q\1147 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\WaU Failure\I147-/\s-Bullt Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 Wing Walls (rev 7-2-08).doc /\s-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Page 5 3.1 Previous GDC Borings GDC Hollow-Stem Auger Boring BH-2 was done near Abutment 1. Native soils below the bottom of footing elevation at Bent 2 are dense to very dense Terrace Deposits consisting of Silty to Clayey Sand and Sand with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blowcount or N-Value of 45 to 86 blows per foot, underlain by Clayey Sandstone bedrock with SPT N-Value of 71 to 87 blows per foot. Perched groundwater was found at El. 14.5 feet. Boring logs from this investigation are presented in Appendix C. 3.2 Ninyo & Moore Borings Ninyo and Moore performed 6 borings using a hand-operated tripod rig with 6 inch diameter solid stem auger. The borings encountered loose to medium dense silty sand (SM) backfill soils with localized gravel underlain by sandstone Terrace Deposits (a.k.a. Old Paralic Deposits) consisting of a weakly cemented silty sandstone or dense to very dense sandy soil. Groundwater was not encountered in the N&M borings. 3.3 Current Investigation 3.3.1 East Wing Wall GROUP DELTA ll'hfH'Mlfii Interpreted soil cross-section and profile of the east wing wall are shown in Figures 3A and 3B. Note that the location of N&M Boring B-3 is only approximate. Borings, DCPTs, and field density tests from the current investigation show that the east wall footing is underlain by up to about 9 feet of loose to very loose silty sand (SM) with variable gravel. Equivalent SPT N-Values from DCPT testing below the footing range from 3 to 6 blows per foot (average 5 bpO- For comparison, the SPT N-Values in the hand compacted backfill for Test Pit TP-1 range from 6 to 10 blows per foot (average 9 bpf). Moisture content measured in TP-1 ranged from 10.3 to 12.6%. Measured percent passing No. 200 sieve was 22 percent. .^^aboratory compaction test data (ASTM^-B4357) on the silty sand (SM) material trom~th€^q;nT^JnyesJi^^ from^ESD results during constmction indicate liaboratory maximLHTKdry densiW^and^tiVhtHti' moisture confgnr'^!28.5 Ipcf and 915% (GDC) and (^3j|Dc^^iri^l percent (TESD). The difference may^due to me fact that the GbC cbfnpaction test sample contained substantial gravel, which l/ould increase maximum dry density and reduce optimum moisture content. N:\ProJects\_AV\llOCM147 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\Wal! FailureMl47-As-Built Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 Wing Walls (rev 7-2-08).doc /\s-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Page 6 Theoretically, a gravel content of about 15% would explain the difference. Most of the field material observed in the test pit and sand cone sample had little to no gravel, so we used 123.5 pcf as the reference standard for computing relative compaction. Field dry density and moisture content measured by the sand cone were as follows: • Dry density 111.5 pcf or relative compaction of 90%, moisture content 10.3% or near optimum. The test shows less than the 95% specified relative compaction. 3.3.2 West Wing Wall Interpreted soil cross-section and profile of the west wing wall are shown in Figures 3C through 3E. Note that the location of N&M Boring B-2 is only approximate. Borings, DCPTs, and field density tests from the current investigation show that the upper step of the west wall footing is underlain by 4 feet of very loose to loose silty sand (SM) with variable gravel, which is in turn underlain by 6 feet of micaceous medium dense to dense sand with silt (SP-SM), which is overlying dense to very dense sandstone materials. The lower footing step has only about 2 feet of loose to medium dense materials overlying dense to very dense soils. Equivalent SPT N-Values from DCPT testing in the upper 4 feet below the upper footing step range from 2 to 6 blows per foot (average 4 bpf). From a depth of 4 to 10 feet below the upper footing step equivalent SPT N-Values range from 23 to 42, below which refusal in very dense material was reached. Perched groundwater was encountered at a depth of 14 feet in HA-2, or near El. 18 feet. Moisture content measured in TP-2 ranged from 10.7 to 11.5%, and in HA-1 and HA-2 was 8 to 13% above groundwater and 27% below groundwater level. Measured percent passing No. 200 sieve in TP-2 was 22 percent, and in the hand auger borings HA-1 and HA-2 ranged from 15 to 19 percent in the silty sand fill and 7 percent in the SP-SM materials. Field dry density and moisture content measured by the sand cone were as follows: GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS • Dry density 105.8 pcf or relative compaction of 86%, moisture content 11.5% or just above optimum. The test shows less than the 95% specified relative compaction. M:\Projects\_A\M100\1147 Simon Wong Eng Carisbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\Wa!l FailureMl47-As-Built Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 \Mng Walls (rev 7-2-08).doc /\s-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Page 7 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Discussion 4.1.1 Data from Construction Backfill soils below footings and behind walls were reportedly on-site excavated materials consisting of sand with silt (SP-SM) and silty sand (SM) placed at 95% or greater relative compaction in accordance with project specifications; The drainage system behind the wall was not installed. 4.1.2 water Une Bi^ak , ) ^Vl (^f'^^ ^ ^ ^ A water line break flooded the slope behind the walls for an unknown period of time, and water was running down the slope in an uncontrolled manner; A void is present along the gas line in the backfill indicating subsurface soil loss and subsurface water flow along the pipe; The sand backfill for the gas line likely acted as a pervious conduit to distribute the leaking water into the wall backfill; Due to lack of a proper drainage system, the only path for water to escape from behind the wall was around the sides or underneath the footings; An unknown head of water developed behind the wall; Visible signs of erosion were observed on the slopes above the wall and below the wall (see Figure 6). Gullying occurred on the upper slope. In addition, gullies occurred on the lower slope below the walls, with the tops of these lower gullies occurring within the slope below the wall, suggesting subsurface flow and V^'^ piping may have occurred; 4.1.3 Wall Movement GROUP DELTA CO.VSULTA.NTS • Subsequent to the water line break, excessive wall movements were observed as evidenced by the offsets observed between the wall faces and the Bent 2 pier wall; • The movements can be characterized as a combination of downslope translation, outward rotation of the top of wall, and settlement of the wall toe (see Figure 4); • Translation of about 1-inch appears to have occurred on both wall footings, based on horizontal offset relative to the pier wall at the bottom of footings. Translation of less than V2 inch would normally be expected; N;\Projects\_AV\J]0Ci\)]47 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\Wall FailureM147-As-Built Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 Wing Walls (rev 7-2-08).doc /\s-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Page 8 Based on vertical offset of top of wall from its original position, vertical settlement of about 2.25 inches and 1.0 inches occurred at the front of the east and west walls, respectively. Total settlements of about a half inch or less would normally be expected for a wall of this height founded in 95% compacted sandy fill; Total lateral movements of about 3.5 inches occurred at the top of the east wall and 1.7 inches occurred at the top of the west wall. Subtracting the 1 inch translation at the footing level, relative movements from top to bottom of wall were about 2.5 and 0.7 inches, respectively. Considering the wall height (top of wall to bottom of footing) is 10.5 feet, the approximate rotations are about 1.1 degrees and 0.3 degrees from the vertical, respectively. A rotation of only about 0.15 degrees would be required to mobilize active earth pressures, thus the rotation exceeds what would normally be expected. It is our opinion that the causes of the movement are as follows: o The water line break saturating the backfill; o Buildup of hydrostatic pressures on the back of wall and below the footing due to lack of proper drainage system; o Water from the pipe failure eroding and washing out the backfill material resulting in loss of material and loosening of the backfill; o Water from the pipe failure built up in the backfill seeping below and around the footing ("under-seepage") resulting in removal of subgrade soil (piping) and loosening of the subgrade and settlement; o Actual pressures exceeding the design pressures due to the reasons listed above, and uplift pressures below the footing, both resulting in reduced sliding and overturning factors of safety and wall movements. The movement of the wall is not a result of a bearing capacity failure, since even the loose subgrade in its current condition would have an ultimate bearing capacity in excess of the applied bearing, but factor of safety would be below that normally required. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS 4.1.4 Current Condition of Footing Subgrade and Wall Backfill • The fill soil types encountered in our investigation and N&M borings are silty sand (SM) and poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM), which is consistent with the data presented by TESD during construction; • The current relative compaction at the tested locations below footings ranges from 86 to 90 percent, which is less than the 95% compaction required by project specifications; • Soils directly underlying the footings are currently in a loose to very loose condition, with SPT N-Values less than 10; M:M'rojects\_AV\I100\I147 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\Wall FailureM147-As-Built Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 \Mng Walls (rev 7-2-08).doc /\s-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Page 9 • Wall backfill as encountered in the N&M borings was classified as loose to medium dense; • Assuming the compaction was performed and tested in accordance with the specifications, the current loose condition of the subgrade may be a result of underseepage and piping of the foundation soils; • Assuming the compaction was performed and tested in accordance with the specifications, the current loose condition of the backfill may be a result of seepage and piping of the backfill soils, and volume increase due to outward movement of the walls. 4.2 Recommendations 4.2.1 General There are currently several primary deficiencies with the v/ing walls: 1) There is no drainage system behind the wall; 2) The subgrade soil is loose to very loose; 3) Backfill slopes and slopes below the wall contain cracks and erosion gullies. Backfill soils also appear to be loose to medium dense, but since the walls have experienced significantly higher pressures due to backfill saturation, it is our opinion that remediation of the backfill soil is not required provided that the drainage system is installed and the upper surface where cracks are present is recompacted. 4.2.2 Wall Drainage Remediation A drainage system should be installed behind the wall to prevent future problems with water in the future. A suitable system would be as shown in Figure 4 of the N&M report, reproduced here as Figure 8. This would involve excavating a 12 inch or wider trench behind the wall, placing a continCious non-woven filter fabric (Mirafi MON or equal) down the back side of wall, along the footing, and up the soil backcut, placing perforated pipe, backfilling with gravel, and discharging the perforated pipe to a solid outlet pipe from the end of the wing wall to the bottom of slope. Filter fabric lap splices should ovedap at least 18 inches. GROUP DELTA CO.VSUl.TANTS 4.2.3 Loose Subgrade Remediation Subgrade materials below the footing have SPT blowcounts significantly less than 10. Although a bearing capacity failure would not be expected, it is generally not advisable to support footings on sand deposits with such a low blowcount. Under future adverse loading conditions as could result from water flooding or other M:M'roject^_AVJ100\ll47 Simon Wong Eng Carisbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\Wall FailureM147-As-Built Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 Wing Walls (rev 7-2-08),doc /\s-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Page 10 factors, additional settlements of the wall could occur. Therefore, it is recommended that some form of remediation be performed below the footings. Feasible options include: • Structural underpinning using pile foundations and a concrete haunch as previously suggested by N&M; • Removal of the wall, replacement of the substandard subgrade with suitable materials, and reconstruction of the wall; • In-situ remediation of the subgrade using compaction grouting or other grouting techniques. In our opinion the least expensive and most constructible option is the in-situ remediation, since it does not involve structural design, demolition, or large amounts of excavation. A specialty contractor experienced in compaction grouting or other suitable techniques would be retained to perform the design and construction of the ground improvement. Discussions with local contractors suggest the cost may be on the order of $50,000. The loose soil remediation should extend to a depth of about 9 feet below the east vi^ng wall, over the full 12 foot length of footing, and over a 12 foot wide zone centered on the footing. For the west wing wall, the depth would be on the order of 4 feet, extending the 23 foot length of the upper footing tier, and over a 12 foot wide zone centered on the footing. We estimate the volume of soil to be treated would be on the order of 100 cubic yards. The wall would need to be monitored carefully during grouting to avoid moving or damaging the wall. 4.2.4 Existing Cracks and Gullies To prevent future infiltration of water, all voids, cracks, and gullies in the backfill and below the wall should be infilled with slurry or compacted soil. To best achieve this, we recommend that the upper 2 feet in the wall backfill be removed and recompacted to not less than 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557). Voids around the gas line may be grouted with 1 sack slurry. The gullies on the lower slope should be filled with slurry. The lower slope surface should be moisture conditioned, the upper 8 inches scarified, and track-walked. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS N:\Projects\_AW10CM147 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\WaQ FailureMl47-As-Built Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 Wing Walls (rev 7-2-Oa).doc As-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering 5.0 LIMITATIONS May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Page 11 This report, exploration logs, and other materials resulting from GDC's efforts were prepared exclusively for evaluation of the existing wing walls. The report is not intended to be suitable for reuse on extensions, or modifications of the project, or for use on any other development, as it may not contain sufficient or appropriate information for such uses. If this report or portions of this report are provided to contractors or included in specifications, it should be understood that they are provided for information only. GDC's recommendations and evaluations were performed using generally accepted engineering approaches and principles available at this time, and the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in this area. No other representation, either expressed or implied, is included in our report. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS The following Figures and Appendices are attached and complete this letter report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 As-Built Foundation Plan and Exploration Plan Figures 3 (A-E) Wall Cross-Sections and Profiles Figure 4 East Wall Movements Figure 5 Wall Movement Photographs Figure 6 Erosion Gullies / Piping Figure 7 Field Investigation Photographs Figure 8 Wall Drainage Detail Appendix A Test Pit, Boring, and DCPT Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Appendix C Existing Geotechnical Data from GDC Appendix D Ninyo and Moore Field and Laboratory Investigation Appendix E Field and Laboratory Test Results from TESD GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS N:V*rojects\_AVJ10(All47 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\Wall FailureMl47-As-Built Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 Wing Walls (rev 7-2-08).doc /\s-Built Evaluation and Remedial Recommendations for Type 5 Walls May 13, 2008 (rev. 7-2-08) Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Page 12 Simon Wong Engineering We hope this report meets your immediate needs. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you in this important project. If you have any questions, please call us at (949) 609-1020. Sincerely, GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. Curt Scheyhing, P.E., G.E. Senior Engineer GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS M,-\ProJec1s\_AVyiOO\I147 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\Wall FailureM]47-As-Built Geotechnical Investigation of Bent 2 Wing Walls (rev 7-2.08).doc FIGURES WTi».0««bCqi>T%lil»'l»»Il»L.ii»VaijiKHJlEW»» SMit.IhttUSCS | |«5»fl a*: I: ;i4m>t* U-Z Dat™V,OSM GROUP DELTA CONSLl.lANrs GDC Project No. 1-147 Carlsbad OH Carisbad, CA Vicinity Map Figure 1 SUPPORT LOCATION iLL0W«8LF tStAHIMC CApACfflf ^^^^) KCumfiL UtAHlUC RCStSTANCE aCNIS 2 ANO 5 \wa ptt IFCFNtt HOtES; I. BOTTOM Of rooima ros BLKIS SIIAIL OI. PLACLB ON UMaSTURSEO MATF.RIAL 7. BACKFILL BtLOW Rt1AIN»<C WAU rOOTiKGS SIIAl! BF COWPACTTD TO A RClAT^E CCWPACTC^J OT flS* INOiCATES eXISTlKC FOOT-.NC IHOICATFS EXTEUT OF rOOTlNC PETBOni (BCMTS 2 ANO 5 OMSY) oraciKA! scA-r oi FUtl SI7f PIANS (INCHES) I ' : fT70O*| - iNOICAIS.5 aoriOM Of FCOTiNG ELEVATiON (FOT. USt) FOR fOOTINS y RtUWiT AMO ftCTAINIKC WAUS (ELEVATIONS Afif APPftOXSUATT ANO SHALL BE 0£TE««iNEO tN FTUD) EXPLORATION LEGEND PLAN A DCPT • Dynamic Cone Penetra^on Test" ' 'O' StMOH WONG ENGINEERING wm KM VM, 7W I O HA - Hand Auger Bormg TP - Exploratory Test Pit Cross-Section NOTF: PIACF I/?' fXPANSKW JOINT FlUER AI JUNCTION OF ORIDCt SUPROBI ANO REI*NINC WAIL GROUP DELTA GDC Project No. 1-147 Carisbad OH Carisbad, CA As-Built Foundation Plan and Exploration Plan Figure 2 40- 35 — C 30- > Ul -J Ui 25-• \— \ FILL Silty SAND (SM) loose to very loose brown, very moist 20— >50 Sand Cone Yd-= 111,5 pcf --RC = 90%- to = 10.3% B.O.F. EL. 27.5' / / / / / 71/11" / / SANDSTONE VERY DENSE -40 -25 -20 GROUP DELTA COXSULTANTS <3R0UP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS 92 ARGONAUT, SUITE 120 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 (949) 609-1020 FIGURE NUMBER 3A PROJECT NAME CARLSBAD OH CARSLBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 CROSS SECTIONS EAST WALL (TYP. SECTION) B 40 RETAINING WALL „TYPE.5.. T.W.. EL. 38 35- EXISTING GRADE IN FRONT OF WALL t 30- > UJ B.O.F. EL. 27.5' OX Q + I 9^ lio I 9 25— Silty SAND (SM) loose to very loose' brown, very moist, fine to coarse 20- EXCAVATION FOR BENT RETROFIT? -.3 B' -40 BRIDGE PIER -TP-1 3.5' THICK FOOTING -POSSIBLY SLURRY INFILL? -35 -30 -25 -20 GROUP DELTA COXSULTANTS GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS ANO GEOLOGISTS 92 ARGONAUT, SUITE 120 ALISO VIEJO. CA 92656 (949) 609-1020 FIGURE NUMBER 3B PROJECT NAME CARLSBAD OH CARSLBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 CROSS SECTIONS EAST WALL PROFILE GROUP DELTA COXSULTANTS GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS 92 ARGONAUT, SUITE 120 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 (949)609.1020 FIGURE NUMBER 3C PROJECT NAME CARLSBAD OH CARSLBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 CROSS SECTIONS EAST END OF WEST WALL (TYP. SECTION) > Ul GROUP DELTA COXSULTANTS GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS 92 ARGONAUT SUITE 120 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 (949) 609-1020 FIGURE NUMBER 3D PROJECT NAME CARLSBAD OH CARSLBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 CROSS SECTIONS WEST END OF WEST WALL (TYP. SECTION) GROUP GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS ANO GEOLOGISTS 92 ARGONAUT. SUITE 120 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 (949) 609-1020 • FIGURE NUMBER 3E PROJECT NAME CARLSBAD OH CARSLBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 CROSS SECTIONS WEST WALL PROFILE 5x=~3.5" [—11.5"—1 6y = ~2.25"^ Estimated Position of Wall After Translation / Rotation -2.25": Ax e Original As-Constructed Position of Wall (Assumed Vertical) = Estimated Settlement at Wall Toe ~ 2.25" = Estimated Translation of Footing ~ 1" = Estimated Rotation of Wall Stem ~ 1.14° Rotation Required to Reach "Active" Condition = 0.23° (loose sand) Rotation Required to Reach "Active" Condition = 0.06° (dense sand) H = 8' r" I —W = 6.5'- F = 1.5" NO SCALE DELTA COXSLLTAXTS GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS 92 ARGONAUT, SUITE 120 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 (949)609.1020 FIGURE NUMBER 4 PROJECT NAME CARLSBAD OH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 EAST WALL MOVEMENTS East Wall GROUP GDC Project No. 1-147 Carisbad OH Carisbad, CA Wall Movement Photographs Figure 5 East Wall West Wall GROUP DELTA I'ONsLi.r.wi^ GDC Project No. 1-147 Carisbad OH Carisbad, CA Erosion Gullies / Piping Figure 6 RETAINING WAU- SOIL BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 30% RELATIVE COMPACTION • WALL FOOTING 12 INCHES - 3/4-INCH OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRIC. -GEOFABRIC 3 INCHES 4.INCH-DIAMETER PERFORATED SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE OR EQUIVAl£NT INSTAUED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN; 1 % GRADIENT OH MORE TO A SUITABLE OUTLET •BASED ON ASTM D15S7 NOTE: AS AN ALTERNATIVE. AM APPROVED OEOCXjMPOSIlE DRAIN SVSIEM MAY BE USED, RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL FIGURE 4 PROJECT NO. DATE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA FIGURE 4 1062140()1 12/07 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA FIGURE 4 GROUP DELTA CONSULT,\NTS GDC Project No. 1-147 Carisbad OH Carisbad, CA Wall Drainage Detail Figure 8 APPENDIXA TEST PIT, BORING, AND DCPT LOGS Boring and Test Pit Logs KEY FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487) GROUP PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOL SECONDARY DIVISIONS CLEAN GRAVEL GW Well-graded gravel, gravel with sand, little or no fines GRAVEL (% GRAVEL > (Less than 6% fines) GP Pocrty-graded gravel, gravel with sand, little or no fines OT S S ^ % SAND) •DIRTY-GRAVEL GM Silty gravel, silty gravel with sand, silty or non-plastic fines ^ 1 (More than 12% fines) GC Clayey gravel, clayey gravel with sand, clayey or plastic fines lARSE-GF ( < 50% til CLEAN SAND SW Well-graded sand, sand with gravel, little or nc fines lARSE-GF ( < 50% til SAND (% SAND >. (Less than 5% fines) SP Poorly-graded sand, sand with gravel, littie or no fines o % GRAVEL) -DIRTY- SAND SM Silty sand, silty sand with gravel, silty or non-plastic fines (More than 12% fines) SC Clayey sand, clayey sand with gravel, clayey or plastic fines 2 = Qll TC AMn (^1 AVO ML Inorganic silt, sandy silt, gravelly silt, or clayey silt with low plasticity o a S i (Liquid Limit ess than 50) CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasficity, sandy clay, gravelly clay, silly clay, Lean Clay (Liquid Limit ess than 50) OL Low to medium plasticity Silt or Clay wilh significant organic content (vegetative matter) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid Limit 50 or morel MH Inorganic elasfic silt, sandy silt, gravelly silt, or clayey sill of medium to high plasficity SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid Limit 50 or morel CH Inorganic clay of high plasficity, Fat Clay OH Medium to high plasticity Silt or Clay wilh significant organic content (vegetafive matter) HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat or other highly organic soils Note: Dual symbols are used for coarse grained soils with 5 to 12% fines Borderline classifications between groups may be indicated by two (ex: SP-SM), and for soils with Atterberg Limits falling in the CL-ML band in the Plasficity Chart symbols separated by a slash (ex: CL/CH, SW/GW). CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS Blowcount SPT' (CAL)^ Consistency Blowcount^ SPT' (CALf Consistency Undrained Shear Strength^ (kPa)' 0-4 (0-6) Very Loose <2 (<3) Very Soft < 12 0-4 (0-6) Very Loose (3-6) Soft 12-24 5-10 (7-15) Loose 5-8 (7-12) Firm 24 - 48 11-30 (16^5) Med. Dense 9-15 (13-22) Stiff 48-96 31-50 (46-76) Dense 16-30 (23^6) Very Stiff 96-192 >50 (>75) Very Dense >31 (>45) Hard > 192 MOISTURE CLASSIFICATION DRY - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch MOIST- Damp bul no visible water WET - Visible free water, usually soil is below water table CONSISTENCY NOTES: 1. Number of blows of a 63.5 kg (140-lb.) hammer falling 762 mm (30 in.) to drive a 50.8mm (2 in.) O.D. (34.925mm [1,375 in.] I.D.)SPT Sampler [ASTM D-1585] the final 304.8mm (12 in.) of driving 2. Number of blows of a 63.5 kg (140 Ib.) hammer falling 762 mm (30 in.) to drive a 76.2mm (3 in.) O.D. (61.468 mm [2.42 in,] I.D.) Califomia Ring Sampler the final 304.8mm (12 in.) of driving. 3. Undrained shear strength of cohesive soils predicted from field blowcounts is generally unreliable. Where possible, consistency should be based on data from pocket penetrometer, torvane, or laboratory tesfing. CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA BASED ON LABORATORY TESTS Grain Size Classification CLAY AND SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES j BOULDERS CLAY AND SILT Fine 1 Medium | Coarse Fine 1 Coarse COBBLES j BOULDERS US std Ste/e ^ No. 200 Grain Size (mm) > 0.075 No. 4o| 0.425 No. 1o| 2 No.4 4.75 3/4"| 3" 19.1 76.2 12"| 304.8 40 a z f 30 o « 20 3 PLASTICITY CHART 20 40 60 80 LIQUID LIMIT, LL Classification of earth materials shown on the logs is based on field inspection and should not be construed to imply laboratory analysis unless so stated. Granular Soil Gradation Parameters Coefficient of Uniformity: Cu = ID,;, Coefficient of Curvature: Cc= (Djof / (0,0 x Deo) 0,0= 10% ofthe soil is finer than this diameter D3o= 30% of the soil is finer than this diameter 0^0= 60% ofthe soil is finer than this diameter Group Symbol Gradation or Plasticity Requirement SW Cu>6 and C^ between 1 and 3 GW Cu>4 and C^ between 1 and 3 GP or SP Clean gravel or sand not meeting requirement for GW or SW GM or SM Plots below "A" Line on Plasticity Chart or PI < 4 GC or SC Plots above "A" Line on Plasticity Chart and PI > 7 Group Delta Consultants, Inc. FIGURE A-1 a PROJECT NAME Carisbad Overhead LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 BORING LEGEND SITE LOCATION San Diego, California START 3/20/2008 FINISH 3/20/2008 SHEET NO. 1 Of 1 DRILLING COMPANY SWE DRILLING EQUIPMENT Hand Auger & Hand Excavator DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger & Test Pit LOGGED BY Edwin & C.ScheyhinJ CHECKED BY C. Scheyhing BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) 20 GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTH/ELEV. GROUND WATER (ft I Ina SAMPLING METHOD NOTES 0. UJ Q 5? Ul —I a. < 05 S LU ? O O — H Z to 111 o >-cc Q UJf-X w) l-tu OH m 01 Ul Ul « o o a. DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION s -10 -15 GRAB, CAL, SPT - Refers to the sampling method as described below GRAB - Refers to collecting sample by method of placing disturbed soil cuttings into a plastic bag Ring and Bag - A 3.0" o.d. tube sampler lined with 2.42" i.d. metal sample rings generally driven into the soil by a free falling hammer SC - Sand Cone Sample ABBREVIATIONS FOR OTHER TESTS: AL = Atterberg Limits Analyses CN = Consolidation CO = Corrosivity CP = Laboratory Compaction Sieve DS = Direct Shear GS = Grain Size PP = Pocket Pen RV = R-Value WA = Wash on #200 GROUP DELTA GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 92 Argonaut, Suite 120 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. FIGURE A-lb LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT NAME Carisbad Overhead PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 BORING HA-1 SITE LOCATION San Diego, California START 3/20/2008 FINISH 3/20/2008 SHEET NO. 1 Of 1 DRILLING COMPANY N/A DRILLING EQUIPMENT Hand Auger DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger LOGGED BY Edwin CHECKED BY C. Scheyhing BORING DIA. (In) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) 6 GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTH/ELEV. GROUND WATER (ft] I /na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES IX UJ Q z g Ul O z UJ < cn . m ^ >o- . z ta '•^^ . tn > UJ^ CO Zq=- UJ o QS V a: a UJ cn 3 „ I- (n & O o: CO UJ H X tn Ul Q. H UJ fi V£ ^ o o CL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Silty Sand (5M) moist, light brown, medium to coarse grained, with some gravel -10 -15 I 109.7 B-2 8.6 11.7 GS 15 18 Rock Encountered at 6 feet bgs. Bottom of boring at 6 feet bgs. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings No groundwater encountered GROUP DELTA GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 92 Argonaut, Suite 120 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. FIGURE A^2 LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT NAME Carlsbad Overhead PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 BORING HA-2 SITE LOCATION San Diego, California START 3/20/2008 FINISH 3/20/2008 SHEET NO. 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY N/A DRILLING EQUIPMENT Hand Auger DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger LOGGED BY C. Scheyhing CHECKED BY C. Scheyhing BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) 15 GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTH/ELEV. GROUND WATER (ft ? 14.0/na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Q. UJ Q UJ Qo- I- Z CD ^COg in Z5:^ UJ o as >-a: a QTcn UJ Q. I- c Ul (/) o O 0. o DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION -10 -15 B-1 13.3 B-2 11.1 19 B-3 B-4 B-5 7.8 8.2 27.3 Silty Sand (SM) very moist, brown, fine to coarse grained Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) moist, light brown, fine to medium grained, no gravel grades to very moist, orange to gray, much mica wet at 14 feet Boring Completed at 15 feet bgs. No caving Groundwater encountered at 14 feet bgs. Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings GROUP Pl DELTA GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 92 Argonaut, Suite 120 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF.DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. FIGURE A-3 LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT NAME Carlsbad Overhead PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 BORING HA-3 SITE LOCATION San Diego, California START 3/20/2008 FINISH 3/20/2008 SHEET NO. 1 Of 1 DRILLING COMPANY N/A DRILLING EQUIPMENT Hand Auger DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger LOGGED BY C. Scheyhing CHECKED BY C. Scheyhing BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) 5 GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTH/ELEV. GROUND WATER (ft I Ina SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Q. UJ a H Z c i_co; CO Zo UJ o QS 5- Q cctn Ul H X tn I- Ul OH UJ « o o a. DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION -10 -15 Silty Sand (SM) very moist, brown, fine to coarse grained Refusal on concrete at 5 feet bgs. No sample taken GROUP DELTA GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 92 Argonaut, Suite 120 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. FIGURE A-4 LOG OF TEST BORING SITE LOCATION San Diego, California PROJECT NAME Carlsbad Overhead PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 START 3/20/2008 FINISH 3/20/2008 BORING TP-1 SHEET NO. 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY SWE DRILLING EQUIPMENT Hand Excavator DRILLING METHOD Hand Excavation LOGGED BY C. Scheyhing CHECKED BY C. Scheyhing BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) 4 GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTH/ELEV. GROUND WATER (ft I Ina SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Q. UJ Q Z o Ul ~ O z UI < CO S LU ? Oo-H Z CO H^> 11! cog z UJ tn Ul o QS >- a cctn Ul H X CO Ul H 5 Ul w O o a. DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION -10 15 B-1 B-2 SC-3 12.6 10.3 CP GS 22 Silty Sand (SM) very moist, brown, fine to coarse grained Bottom of borehole at 4 feet bgs. No groundwater encountered No caving GROUP DELTA! GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 92 Argonaut, Suite 120 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED, FIGURE A-5 LOG OF TEST BORING SITE LOCATION San Diego, California PROJECT NAME Carlsbad Overhead PROJECT NUMBER 1-147 START 3/20/2008 FINISH 3/20/2008 BORING TP-2 SHEET NO. 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY SWE DRILLING EQUIPMENT" Hand Excavator SAMPLING METHOD DRILLING METHOD Hand Excavation BORING DIA. (In) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) 6 LOGGED BY C. Scheyhing GROUND ELEV (ft) CHECKED BY C. Scheyhing DEPTH/ELEV. GROUND WATER (ft; I Ina NOTES z g UJ UJ -I CL < tn ^ UJ ^ go-I- Z CD HCO5 Z UJ -J tn Ul o oS >-cc Q ccin Ul h-I in H Ul OH z UJ Q. H O UJ w U O 0. DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Silty Sand (SM) very moist, brown, fine to coarse grained -10 -15 B-1 10.7 GS 22 SC-2 11.5 Bottom of borehole at 6 feet bgs. No groundwater encountered No caving GROUP DELTA GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 92 Argonaut, Suite 120 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. FIGURE A-6 DCPT Logs company name company address company city, state, zip HOLE#: DCPT-1 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Group Delta Consultants 92 Argonaut, Suite 120 PROJECT NUMBER: Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 DATE STARTED DATE COMPLETED Page 1 of 1 1-147 03-20-2008 03-20-2008 CREW: Basilic, Afch, Scheyhing PROJECT: Carlsbad OH ADDRESS: Carlsbad Blvd RR Tracks LOCATION: Carisbad, CA SURFACE ELEVATION WATER ON COMPLETION HAMMER WEIGHT: CONE AREA: 32 NE 35 lbs. 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm^ GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY 1 m 2 m 1 ft 2fl 3 ft 4 ft 5ft 6 ft 7 ft 8 ft 9ft 3 m 10 ft 11 ft 12 ft -4m 13 ft 5 4 2 3 7 9 6 6 19 16 11 7 5 8 5 3 2 4 5 8 5 16 22 9 7 7 14 24 34 36 56 80 22.2 17.8 8.9 13.3 31.1 40.0 26.6 26.6 84.4 71.0 42.5 27.0 19.3 30.9 19.3 11.6 7.7 15.4 19.3 30.9 17.1 54.7 75.2 30.8 23.9 23.9 47.9 82.1 116.3 123.1 171.4 244.8 6 5 2 3 8 11 7 7 24 20 12 7 5 8 5 3 2 4 5 • 8 4 15 21 8 6 6 13 23 LOOSE LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE VERY LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF SOFT SOFT MEDIUM STIFF STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF SOFT SOFT SOFT MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF SOFT STIFF VERY STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD HARD HARD WILDCAT.XLS company name company address company city, state, zip HOLE #: DCPT-2 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Group Delta Consultants 92 Argonaut, Suite 120 PROJECT NUMBER Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 DATE STARTED DATE COMPLETED Page 1 of 2 1-147 03-20-2008 03-20-2008 CREW: Basilio, Afoh, Scheyhing PROJECT: Carlsbad OH ADDRESS: Carlsbad Blvd @ RR Tracks LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA SURFACE ELEVATION WATER ON COMPLETION HAMMER WEIGHT CONE AREA 33 14 35 lbs. 10 sq. cm BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10 cm •Kg/cm^ -6 26.6 -5 22.2 1 ft 5 22.2 -4 17.8 -3 13.3 2 ft 4 17.8 -3 13.3 -2 8.9 3 ft 3 13.3 - Im 3 13.3 -6 23.2 4ft •5 19.3 -3 11.6 -2 7.7 5fl 3 11.6 -3 11.6 -3 11.6 6 ft 5 . 19.3 -7 27.0 -2m 7 27.0 7 ft 4 13.7 -6 20.5 -4 13.7 8 ft 3 10.3 -3 10.3 -3 10.3 9ft 3 " 10.3 -3 10.3 -7 23.9 -3m 10 ft 12 41.0 -28 85.7 -65 198.9 -53 162.2 11 ft 50 153.0 -50 153.0 -40 122.4 12 ft 40 122.4 -57 174.4 -44 134.6 -4m 13ft 30 91.8 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 TESTED CONSISTENCY N' SAND & SILT CLAY 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -VERY DENSE HARD -DENSE HARD -DENSE HARD -DENSE HARD -DENSE HARD DENSE HARD -DENSE HARD -DENSE HARD -MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF WILDCAT.XLS HOLE #: DCPT-2 PROJECT: Carlsbad OH WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG PROJECT NUMBER: Page 2 of 2 1-147 BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY DEPTH PER 10 cm Kg/cm^ 0 50 100 150 N' SAND & SILT CLAY 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD 14 ft 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD 14 ft 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD 15ft 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 18 18 23 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD 15ft 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 18 18 23 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 18 18 23 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD I6ft -5m 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 18 18 23 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD I6ft -5m 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD I6ft -5m 33 34 40 34 34 24 24 30 40 65 91.4 94.2 110.8 94.2 94.2 66.5 66.5 83:1 110.8 180.1 MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF VERY STIFF HARD HARD 17ft 18 ft 19ft -6m 20 ft 21 ft 22 ft -7m 23 ft 24 ft 25 ft 26 ft - 8m 27 ft 28 ft 29 ft - 9m WILDCAT.XLS company name company address company city, state, zip HOLE #: DCPT-3 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Group Delta Consultants 92 Argonaut, Suite 120 PROJECT NUMBER: Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 DATE STARTED DATE COMPLETED Page 1 of 2 1-147 03-20-2008 03-20-2008 CREW: Basilio, Afoh, Scheyhing PROJECT: Carlsbad OH ADDRESS: Carlsbad Blvd @ RR Tracks LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA SURFACE ELEVATION WATER ON COMPLETION: HAMMER WEIGHT CONE AREA 31 NE, 35 lbs. 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm^ -4 17.8 -9 40.0 1 ft 10 44.4 -10 44.4 -8 35.5 2ft 7 31.1 -8 35.5 -7 31.1 3 ft • 7 31.1 - 1 m 7 31.1 -5 19.3 4ft 5 19.3 -5 19.3 -6 23.2 - • . 5ft 5 19.3 -5 19.3 -5 19.3 6ft • 5 19.3 -5 19.3 -2m 4 15.4 7ft 4 13.7 -4 13.7 -4 13.7 8ft 4 13.7 -5 17.1 -4 13.7 9ft 5 17.1 -5 17.1 -9 30.8 -3m 10 ft 8 27.4 -8 24.5 -5 15.3 -7 21.4 11 ft 7 21.4 -6 18.4 -5 15.3 12 ft 6 18.4 -4 12.2 -7 21.4 -4m 13 ft 12 36.7 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY 5 11 12 12 10 8 10 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 8 7 6 4 6 6 5 4 5 3 6 10 LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM DENSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE VERY LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE VERY LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE VERY LOOSE LOOSE VERY LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF STIFF STIFF STIFF STIFF MEDIUM STIFF STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT SOFT MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF SOFT MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF MEDIUM STIFF SOFT MEDIUM STIFF SOFT MEDIUM STIFF STIFF WILDCAT.XLS HOLE #: DCPT-3 PROJECT: Carlsbad OH WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 2 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 1-147 BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY DEPTH PER 10 cm Kg/cm^ 0 50 100 150 N' SAND & SILT CLAY 70 SQ 193.9 246.5 VERY DENSE VERY DENSE HARD HARD 70 SQ 193.9 246.5 VERY DENSE VERY DENSE HARD HARD 14 ft 193.9 246.5 VERY DENSE VERY DENSE HARD HARD 15 ft 16ft -5m 17ft 18 ft 19ft -6m 20 ft 21 ft 22 ft -7m 23 ft 24 ft 25 ft 26 ft - 8m 27 ft 28 ft 29 ft - 9m WILDCAT.XLS APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Amount of Material in Soil Finer Than No. 200 Sieve (ASTM D-1140-97) 1-3 ProjectNo. : 1-417 Project Name : Carlsbad OH Boring No. HA^1 Prepared By : E. Y. Date : 03/27/08 Percentage of Maximum Size Sample No. B-2 Washed By: E.Y. Date : 03/28/08 Gravel Sand Fine Maximum Size Depth ( ft) 4.0 4.5 Tested By : E.Y. Date : 03/28/08 3 79 18 3/8" Depth ( m ) 1.22 1.37 Checked By : Date : 3 79 18 Description Sample Passing Retained X Method (A) - Soaked by Water Sample No. 200 No. 4 Method (B) - Soaked by Deflocculating Agent (Minium 2 Hours) Tested Moisture Sieve Container Number S-3 S-3 S-3 S-3 Wet Weight of Soil -l- Container (gm) 393.53 393.53 Dry Weight of Soil -1- Container (gm) 365.44 321.78 Weight of Container (gm) 126.10 126.10 126.10 Weight of Dry Soil (gm) 239.34 239.34 195.68 6.76 Moisture Content (%) 11.74 (%) of Soil Passing No. 200 Sieve and Retained on No. 4 Sieve 18.24 2.82 Remark: 1 Boring No. HA-2 Prepared By : E.Y. Date : 03/27/08 Percentage of Maximum Size Sample No. B-2 Washed By: E.Y. Date : 03/28/08 Gravel Sand Fine Maximum Size Depth ( ft) 6.0 7.0 Tested By : E.Y. Date : 03/28/08 1 80 19 3/8" Depth ( m ) 1.83 2.14 Checked By : Date : 1 80 19 Description Sample Passing Retained X Method (A) - Soaked by Water Sample No. 200 No. 4 Method (B) - Soaked by Deflocculating Agent (Minium 2 Hours) Tested Moisture Sieve Container Number S-4 S-4 , S-4 S-4 Wet Weight of Soil + Container (gm) 398.07 398.07 Dry Weight of Soil + Container (gm) 371.00 323.84 Weight of Container (gm) 126.50 126.50 126.50 Weight of Dry Soil (gm) 244.50 244.5 197.34 7.30 Moisture Content (%) 11.07 (%) of Soil Passing No. 200 Sieve and Retained on No. 4 Sieve 19.29 0.53 Remark : 2 Boring No. HA-2 Prepared By : E. Y. Date : 03/27/08 Percentage of Maximum Size Sample No. B-5 Washed By: E.Y. Date : 03/28/08 Gravel Sand Fine Maximum Size Depth ( ft) : 14.0 15.0 Tested By : E.Y. Date : 03/28/08 0 93 7 Depth ( m) : 4.27 4.58 Checked By : Date : 0 93 7 Description : Sample Passing Retained X Method (A) - Soaked by Water Sample No. 200 No. 4 Method (B) - Soaked by Deflocculating Agent (Minium 2 Hours) Tested Moisture Sieve Container Number S-6 S-6 S-6 S-6 Wet Weight of Soil + Container (gm) 404.53 404.53 Dry Weight of Soil + Container (gm) 344.66 330.19 Weight of Container (gm) 125.70 125.70 125.70 Weight of Dry Soil (gm) 218.96 218.96 204.49 0 Moisture Content (%) 27.34 (%) of Soil Passing No. 200 Sieve and Retained on No. 4 Sieve 6.61 0.00 Remark 1-5 Moisture, Densitv and Classification of Soil (ASTM D-2937 / 2487 / 2488) Project No. Test Standard 1-417 Project Name : Carlsbad OH • CAL. TRAN. 0 ASTM • Other Unit Used (English / SI) : £ Sampled By Received By : EY Tested By : EY Computed By : EY Checked By : Date Date : 03/27/08 Date : 03/28/08 Date : 03/31/08 Date : Boring No . HA-1 HA -1 HA-2 HA-2 HA-^ Sample No. ( B-BUUI, S-SPT, D-Drlve, T-Tuhe) D-1 B-2 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 Sample Depth (ft/m) 3.0 1 0.92 4.0 1 1.22 1 1 3.0 1 0.92 6.0 1 1.83 10.0 1 3.05 12.0 \ 3.66 14.0 1 4.27 1 Sample Type ( E.Rmg, B-BUUI, MB-Medium , SB-Small Bag) Ring Small Bag Small Bag Small Bag Small Bag Small Bag Small Bag U.S.C.S. Description WeU, Poorly, Graded) (Boulder>l', Cobbles>3"<l') Trace (< 5% ), Few (5-10%), Little (15-25%), Some (30-45%), Mostly ( > 50% ) ( Stratified, Laminated, Fissured, Blocky, Lensed, Homogeneous ) Presence of Roots or R Holes, Mica, Gypsum, Calcium Carbonate, Caliche Shale Churdt, Crush Sand Stone/Rock, Broken Shells, Slag, Granite, Nodule. Color ( Brown, Dark, Gray or Grayish, Light, Olive ) { Pale, Red or Redish, Very, Yellow or Yellowish) Moisture State (Dry, Moist, Wet) Maximum Particle Size (inch or No. ot Sieve) Grain Size Distribution (%) (Gravel: Sand ; Fine) Sand Size ( Coarse / Medium / Fine ) Plasticity ( N-NO, L-LOW, M.Medium, H-High) Consistency / Relative Density Reaction to 10% of HCL ( None, Weak, Strong ) Moisture Content ( % ) 8.61 11.74 13.28 11.07 7. 76 8.. ?3 27.34 Wet Density (pcf) 119.09 Dry Density (pcf) 109.66 Void Ratio 0.54 Porosity ( % ) 34.95 Container Number S-1 S-3 1 S-4 2 S-5 S-6 Total Wet Wt. Soil + ( Ring / Tube ),(gm) 565.78 Total Length of Sample (inch) 3 Wet Weight of Soil + Container (gm) 387.76 393.53 232.34 398.07 225.10 390.53 404.53 Dry Weight of Soil + Container (gm) 366.85 365.44 212.01 371.00 213.16 370.46 344.66 Weight of Container (gm) 123.87 126.10 58.92 126.50 59.38 126:60 725.70 Unit Weight of Tube or Ring (gm/inch) 44.80 Average Interior Diameter (inch) 2.420 Unit Volume (fth 0.00266182 Specific Gravity (Assuming) 2.70 '170 '176 170 2.70 176 176 2.70 2.70 - m— Pocket Penetrometer (tsf) Torvane Shear (kg/cm'') Grain Size Distribution (%) (Gravel; Sand : Fine) Sand Equivalent Atterberg Limits ( LL/PL/PI) Soil-Minimum Resisivity / (ohm-cm) Soil-( pH ) Soil-Soluble Sulfate Content-(ppm) Soil-Moisture Free Chloride Content-(ppm) Max. Dry Density/OPT Moisture (pcff%) " R " Value Sample Remained (Ring, em. Ran Out) 1 Sampled By : Received By : EY Tested By : EY Computed By : EY Checked By : Date : Date : 03/27/08 Date : 03/28/08 Date : 03/37/08 Date : Moisture, Densitv and Classification of Soil (ASTM D-2937 / 2487 / 2488 ) 2-5 Project No. :/-477 Test Standard : • Project Name : Carlsbad OH CAL. TRAN. 0 ASTM • Other Unit Used (English / SI) : E Boring No . —rm— Sample No. ( B-Bulk, S-SPT, O-Drive, T-Tuhe) B-1 B-1 Sample Depth (ft/m) 2.0 1 0.61 1 • 1 3.0 1 0.92 1 1 1 t 1 Sample Type ( K-mng, B-Bulk, MB-Medium , SB-Small Bag) Small Bag Small Bag U.S.C.S. Description t^eU, Poorly, Graded) (Boulder>r, Cobbles>3"<l') Trace'{<5%), Few (5-10%), Utile (15-25%), Sonie (30-45%), Mostly (> 50%) ( Stratified, Laminated, Fissured, Blocky, Leased, Homogeneous : Presence of Roots or B Holes, Mica, Gypsum, Calcium Carbonate, Caliche Shale Chunk, Crush Sand Stone/Rock, Broken Shells, Slag, Granite, Nodule. Color ( Brown, Dark, Gray or Grayish, Light, Olive ) ( Pale, Red or Redish, Very, Yellow or Yellowish ) Moisture State ( Dry, Moist, Wet) Maximum Particle Size (inch or No. of Sieve) Grain Size Distribution (%) (Gravel; Sand : Fine) Sand Size ( Coarse / Medium / Fine ) Plasticity ( N-NO, L.LOW, M-Medium, H-High) Consistency / Relative Density Reaction tolO%ofHCL ( None, Weak, Strong) Moisture Content ( % ) 12.61 10.66 Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Void Ratio Porosity ( % ) Container Number S-7 S-8 Total Wet Wt. Soil + ( Ring / Tube ),(gm) Total Length of Sample (inch) Wet Weight of Soil + Container (gm) 426.62 440.80 Dry Weight of Soil + Container (gm) 393.05 411.22 Weight of Container (gm) 126.83 133.86 Unit Weight of Tube or Ring (gm/inch) Average Interior Diameter (inch) Unit Volume (ft'> Specific Gravity (Assuming) Ifd 176 176 2.70 176 176 2.70 2.70 2.70 176 Pocket Penetrometer (tsf) Torvane Shear (kg/cm^) Grain Size Distribution (%) (Gravel: Sand: Fine) Sand Equivalent Atterberg Limits ( LL/PL/PI) Soil-Minimum Resisivity / (ohm-cm) Soil-( pH ) Soil-Soluble Sulfate Content-(ppm) Soil-Moisture Free Chloride Content-(ppm) Max. Dry Density/OPT Moisture (pc£/%) " R " Value Sample Remained (Ring, em, Ran Out) 2 Sampled By : Received By : EY Tested By : EY Computed By : EY Checked By : Date : Date : 03/27/( 18 Date : 03/28/08 Date : 03/37/08 Date : Boring No . Sample No. ( B-Bulk, S-SPT, D-Drive, T-Tiibe) WATER CONTENT TESTS PROJECT Group Delta # 1-147 JOB NO. 2002-017 BY LD DATE 03/20/08 Sample No. TP-1 TP-2 Depth (ft) 4.0 6.0 Testing Soil Type Brown, F.M. Silty Sanij w. Clay Brown, F.M. Silty Sand w. trace Clay Wet+Tare No. Ring Can No. Dry Weight Wet density % Water 10.3 11.5 Dry Density O.B.Press(psf) Sample No. Depth (ft) Testing Soil Type Wet+Tare No. Ring Can No. Dry Weight Wet density % Water Dry Density O.B.Press(psf) GeoLogic Associates us Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 6" 5" 4" 3" 2.5"2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #10 #20 #30 #40 #50 #60 #100 #200 0.0 1000 100 10 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (mm) Symbol o A Boring Number HA-1 Sample Number R-1 Depth (ft) 3.0 35 0.92 1.07 Soil Color Light Brown Soil Description S//fy Sand Remark : 61) I M u v a S3 a u SH V OH 0.001 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Cobbles Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt or Clay U.S.C.S. SM GROUP Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead Project No. :\l-147 \ Date : 04/02/08 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D-422-63) Figure No.: B-1 us Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 6" 5" 4" 3"2.5"2" 1,5" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #10 #1R #20 #30 #40 #50 #60 #100 #200 0.0 1000 Grain Size (mm) Symbol o Boring Number HA-2 Sample Number B-4 Depth mi 12.0 13.0 (xn) 3.66 3.97 Soil Color Light Brown Soil Description Poorfy Graded Sand with Silt Remark ; be i CQ ll tu a u u IS 04 0.001 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Cobbles Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt or Clay U.S.C.S. SP-SM GROUP Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead Project No. :\l-147 Date 04/02/08 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D-422-63) Figure No. : B-2 us Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 6" 5" 4" 3"2.5"2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #10 #20 #30 #40 #50#60 #100 #200 0.0 lit I 1000 100 10 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (mm) Symbol o Boring Number rp-2 Sample Number 6-2 Depth (ft) 3.0 4.0 (m) 0.92 1.22 Soil Color Brown Soil Description S//fy Sand m cu c c a> o a. 0.001 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Cobbles Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt or Clay U.S.C.S. SM Remark : GROUP Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead Project No. :\l-147 \ Date: 04/02/08 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D-422-63) Figure No. B-4 us Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis 6" 5" 4" 3" 2.5"2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #10 ' #16 #20 #30 #40 #50#60 #100 0,01 Grain Size (mm) Symbol O Boring Number TP-I Sample Number B-1 Depth (ft) 2.0 30 0.61 0.92 Soil Color Brown Soil Description S//fy Sand Remark : CQ 0) c c o 0.001 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Cobbles Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt or Clay U.S.C.S. SM GROUP Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead Project No. :\l-147 \ Date 04/02/08 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D-422-63) Figure No. : B-3 ly/lAXIIVIUIVI DENSITY TEST ASTIVl D1557 Job Name Job No. Boring/Sample No. Description : Group Delta # 1-147 2002-017 #1 Brown, F.M. Sandy Clay w. Gravel Date: 3/21/2008 By: LD Method: C Mold Volume (cf): 0.0750 Blows: 56 Layers: 5 Specimen A B C D E Total Wet Weight (Ibs) 17.17 17.12 16.57 16.73 Weight of Mold (Ibs) 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 Wet Weight of Soil (Ibs) 10.58 10.53 9.98 10.14 Wet Density (pcf) 141.1 140.4 133.1 135.2 Moisture Can No. Dry Weight Moisture Content (%) 9.6 11.5 7.5 13.3 Dry Density (pcf) 128.7 125.9 123.8 119.3 (35 130 125 to c Q b Q 120 115 110 105 100 \ \ \ \ \ , \, \ \ \\ \ 4 4 k- \ Maximum Dry Density: 129.0 pc Optimum moisture : 9.5 % f \ V V Maximum Dry Density: 129.0 pc Optimum moisture : 9.5 % —\ r-A ,\ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \, \ r\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, \, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \l \ \, \ \ \, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \l 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Moisture Content (%) GeoLogic Associates APPENDIX C EXISTING GEOTECHNICAL DATA FROM GDC APPENDIX A A.I Introduction fleld ,„ves,,ga,i„n and lab„n„„ry testing a,^ sLmLzed to Tabl A-2 ' °' A.2 Field Investigation under a continuous .^0^0^! sup^istZ ,7'^o-Pany stratigraphy, classifled the soils, and obtain^ split sLn S.^ H ^T'' ^^'""^ diameter spU*p^„™a^ '1*', ! ^p"* "i™"- UTS-inch inside safety hamper toppitS inTe^ " ""^^ " "^vrr:L:x^:t?nn-:^^^^^ the relative density and .distance of the samptedZS A.3 Laboratory Testing Soil samples were carefully sealed in the field to prevent moisture lo.. All were then transported to our lahnrat^r,, • ^.^^ moisture loss. All the samples properties and enuring cl^c^risS^^^^^^^^^ '^f' " witii appropriate Caltrans Testing Methods/cS> Rrii?f - "'=""<'=n« testing pn,g,an, and test results a^ pSSmedS; A.3.1 Soil Classification The subsurface materials were classified usine the T lnifi,.H C^;T r>^ r- • accordance witi, ASTM Test Metiiods m^^.T^r^l^^^T^^Z'^^Z^Z are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and sunuriarized in Table A-2. A.3.2 In Situ Moisture Content Moisture content and diy density were detennined for selected ..mni.. . • samples were trimmed to obtain volume and wet weifihuheTwel dTd with CTM 226. Ailer drying the weight of TI^! ^"^'^ accordance content and dry density were clukted TS! and moisture and bulk sarnies wer^ al^det ^^n^^^^^ -P- boring logs in Appendix A and summarizedin T^Ie A 2 ^'^ A.3.3 Grain Size Distribution and Wash Analysis p^strseZSrthet':^h::r.;^^^^^^^^^ - graphically shown in A 2 nTS^-^'" ^'^.'''^««°» Perfotmed are ?r A^rptfenSJ-f^^^^^ for evaluatiti tel^^SSon ^T^^t V ^""^ ^''^=> ™P°"^' ^or 3e.ec.edsa„dUi,sl5=r;',^^^^^^ A.4 Boring Logs ^di^^St-^ti^^^SnX-^^rz^^^^^^ -— indicate the type of te^ p^Jt^^.' abbrevations are used on «,e logs to GS . Grain Size Distribution Test WA Wash Analysis / Fines Content DeteiTnination (% Passing #200 Sieve) A.5 List of Attached Tables and Figures The following tables and figures are attached and complete this appendix: Table A-1 Soil Boring Summary' Filre A 1 l"^"^ ^^'''"''^ Laboratory Test Results higureA-1 Boring Location Plan HgureA-2 Grain Size Distribution ngureA-3 Key for Soil Classification Figures A-4 through A.6 Boring Logs (BH-l through BH-2) TABLE A-1 SOIL BORING SUMMARY CARLSBAD OVERHEAD (BRIDGE NO. S7C-134) LOCAL AGENCY SEISMIC RETROFIT PROJECT _BH-2 Notes * Groundwaternot encountered ** Perched groundwater encountered TABLE A-2 SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS CARLSBAD OVERHEAD (BRIDGE NO. 57C-134) LOCAL AGENCY SEISMIC RETROFIT PROJECT Note * No sample recovery BtntS V *^ iThruS ^ ELEVATION S0'-?'i sstjo^* =id-r* PLAN Group Delta Consultants CARLSBAD OVERHEAD, BRIDGE NO. 570-134 (SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIp'^i^ BORING LOCATION PLAN (REFERENCE GENERAL PLAN, CARLSBAD BOULEVARD OVERHEAD) BH-l Figure A-1 C:\PROJECrsu\^FFATiyiElROm\57CI34BP.CRF 100 COBBLES GRAVEL UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION COARSE mz U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES SAND ONE SILT OR CLAY 12 6 a 3/4 1/23/8 • -9 U.S. STANDAHO SIEVE No. ^ a> 40 eo 140 800 HYDROMETER GRAIN SIZE IN MILUMETER E- o Q E-. W P5 60 g o « PH SYMBOL BORING O BH-2 • BH-2 10-11.5 20-21.5 DESCRIPTIOW SM/SC SP Remark : Project No. I-111 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS. INC. CARLSBAD OVERHEAD GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Figure No. A-2 p RJMAUYDMSl ONS GROUP SYMBOL SECONDARY OmStONS §|i cr e dill gf |5 GRAVa.S (Less Than SX Flms) GW W«a Graded Gravels, Qraveis Wlh Saod, una Or No Fines. §|i cr e dill gf |5 GRAVa.S (Less Than SX Flms) GP Pooity Graded Gravels. Qraveb WUi Sand. UUa Or No Fines. §|i cr e dill gf |5 GRAVEL (UoiB Than 12% Fines} GM S«iy Gravot*. Silly Gravel WWi Sand. Men Ptasdc Fines. §|i cr e dill gf |5 GRAVEL (UoiB Than 12% Fines} GC dayey Gravels. Clayey Gravel WUh Sand. Pbslle Fines. §|i cr e CLEAN SANOS {Less Than 5% Fines) SW Wall Graded Sands. Sand Wilh Gravel, UUa Or No Fhes. §|i cr e CLEAN SANOS {Less Than 5% Fines) SP Poody Graded Sands, Ulla Or No Fines. §|i cr e SANDS (Mom Than )2% Finos) SU SWy Sands, Sand^m MMures. Non-Plastte Fhes. §|i cr e SANDS (Mom Than )2% Finos) SC Clayey Sands, SandCtay MMures. Plasl/c Fines. UJ V, VI i SILTS AND CUYS; Uquid Umn Is Less Than SO ML Inorganic SUs and Vaiy Fine Sands. HocK Flour. SUy or Clayey Fine Sands Of Clayey SIKs With SOQN Plastldtv, UJ V, VI i SILTS AND CUYS; Uquid Umn Is Less Than SO CL Inofflanlc Clays of Low to Medium PlasUelly, GraveSy Clays. Sandy Clays. SIRy Clays. Lean Clays. UJ V, VI i SILTS AND CUYS; Uquid Umn Is Less Than SO OL Offianfc SIBs and Orflanto Siay Clays 0/Low PJasUdly. |IP u. 5 SILTS . AND CUYS MH Inorganic Bastlc SIBs, Micaceous or CXamaceous Fine Sandy or SUly Solb, Plasllc Sills. |IP u. 5 SILTS . AND CUYS ll CH Inorganic Clays or High Plaslldty. Fai Clays. |IP u. 5 SILTS . AND CUYS •SS ^ OH Ofganlo days ol Medium lo High Plaslldty, oiganlc SIBs. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peel BndOUwrHlQNyOroanicSolls. _,„,._,..„„,, ™- w<»v. VI uiainaa wjtta WIUI b% 1012% Hnoa (Paasin J ."^ °" ^ Represented Wilh Two Symbols Separated By A Slash. GRANULAR COHESIVE Consistency Blows/Foot* Consistency Blows/Foot* Strength" Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft 0-4 0-1/2 Loose 5-9 Soft 5-9 1/2-1 Slightly Compact 10-19 Stiff 10-19 1-2 Compact 20-34 Very Stiff 20-34 2-4 Dense 35-69 Hard 35-69 Over 4 Vety Dense >70 Very Hard >70 - •Number of Blows ol 140 Pound Hammer Falling 30 Inches To Drive a 2-Inch O.D. (1-3/B InohLD.) Split BanBl Sampler (ASTM D-1666 Standard Penelralion Test). "Shear SlfBnglh In KSF. Read From Pocket Penetromeler. PLASTICITY CHART X •s JC •o 1 \ 1 vn c .on H. .< V r 0 ? r M ^or OH 1-MI 1 1 - ofoq Liquid Limit (LL) 60 CUYS AND SILTS SANO FkM Madlum Coaise GRAVEL Fine I Coarae COBBLES BOULDERS Sieve Sizes 200 40 io 4 3/4- g- U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS Classincallon of Earth Materials is Based on Raid Inspection and Should Not Be Constmed To Imply Laboratoiy Analysl^Unless So Slalsd. 2 GW and SW: 0^= Greater Than 4 For GW and 6 For SW; 0 c = ^^^^ D10X Dgo Between 1 and 3 100 GP and SP: Clean Gravel or Sand Nol Meeting Requirement ForQW and SW. GM and SM: Attsifaerg Umit Below "A" Una or P.J. Less TTiah 4 GC and SC: AUartjerg Umil Above 'A' Line P,l. Greater Than 7. KEY FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION FIGURE A-3 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF SUP TUC^™" LOCATIONS ANO MAY CHANGE Of ACTUAL CONOmONS ENCOUNTERED "lESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION Fill: Clayey SAND (SQ, brown, dainp, lopse^jiightiy compact Sandy CLAY (CL), brown gray, moist, stiff to very stiff with trace of gravel No sample recovery § w 49 : 45 SAMPLE TYPES; [C] Rock Core H] Standard Split Spoon (D] Drive Sample m Bulk Sample [T] Tuba Sample Clayey SAND (SC), - brown, moist, sliglitly compact to compact 40 35 Sand lens Gravels and cobbles Santiago Formation: Clayey SANDSTONE (SC), light gray, moist, very dense Harder drilling \Auger refiisal Uoring terminated at Elev. I8.5ft" Groundwater not encoimtered 30 25 20 15 DATE DRILLED: 6-6-97 EQUIPMENT/METHOD USED- CME 95/HSA SUPERVISOR; G. SPAULDING PROJECTNO. 1-111 CARLSBAD OVERHEAD _SANDIEGO COUNTY. CALIFORMIA 10 e-.^ 1 LOG OF BORING NO. BH-1 ™^LlAGE_ioF^__ Oi ai WA GS WA GS WA o 6.3 5.7 5.6 8.0 12.9 WA 11.0 12.7 3 DESCRIPTTON OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS SAMPLE TYPES; [C] Rock Core m Standard Split Spoon El Drive Sample m Bulk Sample Tube Sample AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF ^IME THE DAT* ^""^ CHANGE OF ACTUAL CONOmONS ENCOUNTERED RESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION Terrace Depnsifg;^ Clayey SAND (SC), red brown, damp, compact to dense § Ul 39 : 35 Saty to Clayey SAND (SM/SC) " mottled brown/gray/red, damp, dense 30 86 73 71 25- 30- 35- 25 roorly Graded SAND with SUt {SP)~ brown, damp, very dense 20 2 Perched groundwater at Elev. 14.5 ft SanQaeo FomTgrinnj^ ^ Clayey SANDSTONE (SC), light olive gray, moist, very'dense 15 10 DATE DRILLED: 6-6-97 EQUIPMENT/METHOD USED CME 95/HSA SUPERVISOR: G. SPAULDING PROJECTNO. 1-111 CARLSBAD OVERHEAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY. CAUFORNIA LOG OF BORING NO. BH- 2 PAGE 1 OF 2 -= , FIGURE A-6 >- OS Q U.I >8 o-o 71 3 87 40- DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS 45- AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF ^ME THE DATA .^ccc^^ '^^^'^^E OF ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION 50- s "\Auger refusal aoring terminated at Elev. -7 ft Perched groundwater encountered at Elev. 14.5 ft 55- 60- -10 -15 -20 65- 70- SAMPLE TYPES [C] Rock Core m Standard Split Spoon [O] Drive Sample (D Bulk Sample [3 Tube Sample 75- -25 -30 -35 OATE DRILLED- 6-6-97 EQUIPMENT/METHOD USED CME 95/HSA SUPERVISOR; G. SPAULDING -40 PROJECTNO. 1-111 CARLSBAD OVERHEAD SAW DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA LOG OF BORING NO. BH- 2 , FIGURE A-i PAGE 2 OF 2 APPENDIX D NINYO AND MOORE FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Carlsbad Boulevard Railroad Overcrossing Slope December 4, 2007 Carlsbad, Califomia ProjectNo. 106214001 APPENDIXA BORING LOGS Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods. Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory excava- tions. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing. Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods. The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1 -inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of the hammer of the drill lig in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the nuinber of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an in- dex to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. IO62M00I R.doc o I o w z z o K . o BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET I XXAXX 1 10- 9 sz. Bulk sample. Modified split-barrel drive sampler. No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler. Sample retained by others. Standard Penetration Test (SPT). No recovery with a SPT. Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches. No recovery with Shelby tube sampler. Continuous Push Sample. Seepage. Groundwater encountered during drilling. Groundwater measured after drilling. 15- SIVI ALLUVIUM; Solid line denotes unit change. DashTdTine 3enotes matenarcfiangieT Attitudes: Strike/Dip b: Bedding c: Contact j: Joint f: Fracture F: Fault cs: Clay Seam s: Shear bss: Basal Slide Surface sf: Shear Fracture sz: Shear Zone sbs: Sheared Bedding Surface The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring. JSL. BORING LOG EXPLANATION OF BORING LOG SYMBOLS PROJECT NO. DATE Rev. 01/03 FIGURE U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES d o 00 Q 2 § o 9 f S % ^-o u o GRAVELS (More than 1/2 of coarse fraction > No. 4 sieve size) SANDS (More than 1/2 of coarse fraction <No. 4 sieve size) «.•« ' GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC Well graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures O u S i s " il ML SILTS & CLAYS Liquid Limit <50 Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with CL SILTS & CLAYS Liquid Limit >50 Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasdcity, organic silty clays, organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils GRAIN SIZE CHART CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION U.S. Standard Sieve Size Grain Size in Millimeters BOULDERS Above 12" . Above 305 COBBLES 12"to 3" 305 to 76.2 GRAVEL Coarse Fine 3" to No, 4 3" to 3/4" 3/4" to No. 4 76.2 to 4.76 76.2 to 19.1 19.1 to 4.76 SAND Coarse Medium Fine No. 4 to No. 200 No. 4 to No. 10 No, 10 to No. 40 No. 40 to No. 200 4.76 to 0.075 4.76 to 2.00 2.00 to 0.420 0.420 to 0.075 SILT & CLAY Below No. 200 Below 0.075 PLASTICITY CHART / / CH CL MH( CL-W >- / MLaOL 1 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 60 SO «0 LIQUID LDVnTCLL), U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION USCS Soil ClassificaliDn Updated Nov. 2004 Q. LU o CO UJ < OT H . O o LL i o CO UJ H OT O O Q. OT Z LU Q >-CH Q O m >- OT < OT t OT o DATE DRILLED 10/15/07 BORING NO. B-1 GROUND ELEVATION 42' +(MSL) SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger/Tripod (Pacific Drilling) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Cathead - 2 tums) DROP 30" SAMPLEDBY MAH LOGGED BY MAH REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION I 10 I 22 8.8 102.8 8.7 119.3 SM FILL: Brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium SAND; trace silt; few scattered gravel. Loose; fine to coarse sand; scattered fme gravel. Medium dense. 15 I 42 OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Light brown to brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty, fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE. Total Depth = 16.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled with hydrated bentonite shortly after drilling on 10/15/07. Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. BORING LOG CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE CMILSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 106214001 DATE 12/07 FIGURE A-1 Q. lU Q OT a. < OT H O o u. OT m 01 H- OT O 2 o w z LU Q >- Q: Q o tn S >- OT OT ^ o DATE DRILLED 10/15/07 BORING NO. B-2 GROUND ELEVATION 40'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger/Tripod (Pacific Drilling) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Cathead - 2 turns) DROP 30" SAMPLED BY MAH LOGGED BY MAH REVIEWED BY DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION RI I 10- 21 28 7.4 104.7 6.6 105.9 SIVl FILL: Brown, damp, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND. Damp to moist. Trace fine gravel. Trace mica. I 15 I 33 64 OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Light brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty, fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE. Total Depth = 16.5 teet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled with hydrated bentonite shortly after drilling on 10/15/07. Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. J2SL BORING LOG CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE . CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 106214001 DATE 12/07 FIGURE A-2 0. UJ o w UJ 0. < OT CO , O O UJ a: H OT O o 0. OT Z UJ Q >-a o o m 5 >- OT < OT OT _; OT O DATE DRILLED 10/15/07 BORING NO. B-3 GROUND ELEVATION 39'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger/Tripod (Pacific Drilling) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Cathead - 2 tums) DROP 30; SAMPLEDBY MAH LOGGED BY MAH REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION 10 8.2 103.5 SM FILL: Brown, damp to moist, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. 42 71/11" OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty, fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE. Trace clay . Micaceous. Total Depth = 16.5 feeL Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled with hydrated bentonite shortly after drilling on 10/15/07. Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. _2Q_ BORING LOG CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 106214001 DATE 12/07 FIGURE A-3 Carlsbad Boulevard Railroad Overcrossing Slope December 4, 2007 Carlsbad, Califomia ProjectNo. 106214001 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix A. In-Place Moisture and Densitv Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex- ploratory excavations were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix A. Gradation Analysis A gradation analysis test was performed on a selected representative soil sample in general ac- cordance with ASTM D422. The grain-size distribution curve is shown on Figure B-1. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Consolidation Tests A consolidation test was performed on a selected relatively undisturbed soil sample in general accordance with ASTM D 2435. The sample was inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent of consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. The results of the test are summarized on Figure B-2. Direct Shear Tests A direct shear test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected material. The sample was inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on Figure B-3. 106214001 R.doc GRAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine • SILT > CLAY U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 3- 2' 1VS" 1" y," V V 4 8 16 3D 60 HYDROMETER GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Symbol Sample Location Depth (ft) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Dio D30 Deo Passing No. 200 (%) USCS • B-1 0-5 ~ -~ ~ ----20 SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 (02) GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-1 PROJECT NO. DATE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-1 106214001 12/07 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-1 108214001 SIEVE e-1 @ 0.0-5.0.XIS 0.1 o OT Z 2 OT OT tu z ill o I H Ul _I 0. < OT H Z UJ o oc UJ Q- z g g o OT z o o -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 Seating Cycle Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435-04 Sample Location B-1 Depth (ft.) 5.0-6.5 Soil Type SM 100.0 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-2 PROJECT NO. DATE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-2 106214001 12/07 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-2 106214W1 CONSOLIDATION B-1 ® 5.0.S.5.xls 3000 u. CO (0 (0 Ol IX. \- I OT 2000 1000 > • < < < y < 4 1000 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 3000 Description Symbol Sample Location Depth (ft) Shear Strength Cohesion, c (psf) Friction Angle, ^ (degrees) Soil Type Silty SANDSTONE B-3 10.0-11.5 Peak 140 38 Formation Silty SANDSTONE B-3 10.0-11.5 Peak 140 38 Formation Silty SANDSTONE - -X - -B-3 10.0-11.5 Ultimate 100 35 Formation PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080-04 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-3 PROJECT NO. DATE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE CARLSBAO, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-3 106214001 12/07 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RAILROAD OVERCROSSING SLOPE CARLSBAO, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-3 106214001 SHEAR B-3 © 10.0-11.5.xls APPENDIX E FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FROM TESD v ii\ I I * .11 lsb.nl ^''.^n I ! i ^imwKi KotI ( .irKlviil. ( '\ ":il(lX BU R E A U ; V E R I T A S 3557- ( .\i>\cn\lvr I. 2('i)<> t oi^iinct i\ii>.: I.»-1X.>4 \tki!(ii>i'. Vlr. 1 )ii;ii)c Si>ilc-.Hi "•\iili|oiI. .•^\:*.!lii.'.k''.l < "oinpitciieii kcpi)ri I'rnio. i < >l I Mriiliic ivcuidli (•:ul.sli;t(l Rivd. r;irkKid. ( A lJi.;.rM! s..ili.:iii i.> .i.\'i!'il.iiKi- wilti umr a-iiiicsi IL'.SIIIIJL l-iiuincor^ Sun Diciiii (ll.-SI.)) l\;i.s U'IKIUCIC'II tiMiliiii; ">l'-.f(and o>u)(>;K.li">ii ll.•^linL' im llic c;irlli\vi)rk pcrllvnicd ;ii ihu iiliiivc- rclcrcnccd proiL-vi S,.-i»iv;*.'.- »i<.-.»;nhcd heroin were iiled h\ 11 SI > Ih^m Mav I 1. 20116 to Scpicnilvr I \ ZIKWi, •> urii;:(ivi' Ilii-- idlii.v; iil>si.MAO(l iiiul leslcd lltc ini-;ccllai»c<iir-s backrilliiii; «i(K'catii>n.s (i.v. i'liilee :.|vniiiieoi^. '.\iiisi v\;ill:.. :iiul appni'loiiiinl Icauircsi in cnniicciioii wilh ihc hridiio relrolii '-•iiiiiiii:ii:i,I-1 lalioialiirv aiiil field eoinpaclion (csl re.Milis are prt>\ivleil iii .Appeiuli v .A. I'ahlv ijdU i-,.-pi,elivel>. Iliipml malenals wuiv ii.<eil tc»r (lie ivlainiily wall haeklill I lie liackllll v^a.s plaeeil. t impiii ied, and iesiv;<l I'm eiiHipliiiiK-e \villi a niininiiiiii 'HI'!.',, and y.^".;. relative oinipaeiicii • einiiiemciK. .i.-- applieafile. ll .iiiiiitii IK Milled thai lhe prcti<ii>ii ul llio lielil and lalimalory ina.vinunii I|IA IICH'-IK lesi lesnliy :i!\- I:' V ai'i;ili'iii inhfivol with leslini! pnieetliiics aiul licieniiieiietui-. madrial . !i.i(;n.li ri,-lie- t.lii:iiilil:»li\'e v.iltie'^ ol lixliiiij preei.sioii h;ive lu-en doeunioiUod lie Ihe .Ameiie.iii .^oeici* >>l le.-iiiiiii ;inil MaicriaN. I nr e.\;iniple. resiilLs iiulicaie lhe aecuracv ol'ihc .\sr\l I >- |s;.ic^i ii> Iv plu.< tw luioiis I |Kieen( ol ilic mean density, lia.sed on ihi.*; inlorniaMoii. relative •.•>nipaeiicii ie^iilK vli.iiiUI he iiilerpielcil •.\s app)'(>.'<iniale values Sdhjcel in Narialions in l.ilcral and •-.erlie.il i|iiei li->i(.-v "Mirvev line- :.iwl elevaumis relative lo itrade iiiDdiUcaliiins. I'MUII desiiiii tirades, loealioiis nl ..II Kuis c li iiieiii^. ele.. were csiahlislieil In iilheis'. ( ieid \.l. iiiiiiinii!; sei viee.-. prov tded In ihi^ nlllee. consislini; ot visual ohservalivid nl ei'inp.iciiuo Kjieial'i'iis .ind rjHidinii iii-plaee dciisiiv lesi. ai"e intended as a.ssislance |o lhe iivviier'elieiil iii iiuoiil.u'iiii: ai>pan.iit rea.soiiahle eoniplianee nilli (he prnjeel eanhvvork spi-eiliealions Ilie pie^eiiee >•! "i" lield represeniaiivc <liirin'.i lt>e vviirk firtiuicss did n<ii iiivolvi- direei • iil>eiv i-.i. ii ol iln. i.<-nnaei(irMilH.i'Hinieloi Teehiiieal ailviee and MijiUesiioii-- v.eie f"niilnl :ii>i'ii iei|iie-i lia.M.tl iipmi lite re^ulls nl'ilie le^I^ and ivh\ervai(i>iis. In anv ease, nn uaiianiv ,ii •,\ .poiiviliiiiu I..rill., eitiinacidi''< perloriiiaiice is intended (<i implied Testing Enffincers San Dicjjo, Inc. .M2in: tiSSl 'l-S-SHOO l-jx; «(«"'(5-5Sin Ciiy of Carlsbad OH Bridge RctroHi ContracI No.: 134834 Based on thc oliservatiuns and lesling made during construction by TESD representatives, it is our opinion thai the miscellaneous backfill earthwork was constructed in general conformance vvith the approved project plans and specifications, and is considered to be suitable for the iniended use. IP you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please da nol hesitate to cotjtaci^he undersigned at (858) 715-5800. ^' Respectfuify sufaniitte<l, TESD. tlic. NMck "Iracy. I-l l Staff Engineer Van W. Olin. Gi~ -^^^^T^T^ .> Principal GeotechnicalEilgTfrcSr .\ I 'Vl 1 •ViiaLhmcnii Appcnili.v .V I .Tl)le I and fabli- ? DKIiihtilfiiii (-n .^dliIc^w•^•* 'Include i.-npic> liu lildj:. dciwdnii'DI !iiibniillat City of Carlsbad Conlract No.: 134834 OH Bridce Retrofit Appendix A Cily of Cnrlsbad ContracI No.: 134834 OH Bridge Retrofit TABLE I RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS (ASTM-D-1557) SAMPLE .ti DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM MOISTURE DENSITY (PCF) CONTENT (%) 1 On-site: Vellowish-Brovvn Poorly Graded(^m>^ 12.0 SAND with Silt 2 On-site: Orange-Brown Silty SAND ^^^^^ 11.0 TABLE 2 REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST DATA Conlract Numt>er Pfoieci Name' Location 13W34 Cartsbad Blvd. OH eridge Retrofit Carlsbad, Califomia Test # Sample it Test Date Test Location Ele. Moisture Dry Density (pet) Relative Compaction Conform Non-Contomi Test # Sample it Test Date Test Location Ele. Fleld OpL Field Maximum Obtained Required Conform Non-Contomi 1 7/10/2006 Bent 5 fooling b.f 5' E of E wall. 32'N of S Pnrl 20.5 12,4% 12.0% 109.3 113.5 96% 95% Conform 2 7/10/2006 Banl 5 footing b.f, 10' WofW wall. 10'N 20.5 12.8% 12.0% 108.2 113.5 95% 95% Conform OfS End 3 1 7/10/2006 Bern 5 fooling b.f. 10' W/ of W wall. 20'5 20.5 13.2% 12.0% 109.3 113.5 96% 95% Conform OfNEnd d 1 7/12/2006 Benl S low of W face. 20'N of S end 22.5 12.8% 12.0% 106.9 113.5 96% 95% Confonn 1 7/12/2006 Bent 5 10'W of W face, 10'S of N end 22.5 13.2% 12.0% 109,4 113,5 96% 95% Conform 6 7/12/2005 E 1.S;1 slope b.f, 5' E of E faca, 20'N of S 22.5 12.4% 12.0% 109.9 113.5 97% 95% Conform 7 7/12/2006 E 1.5;1 slope b.f, 5' E of E face, 10'S of N 24.5 12.4% 12.0% 108.1 113,5 95% 95% Conform B 7/12/2006 E 1.5:1 slop* b.f, 5' E ol E face. 30'S of N ond 26.5 13.2% 12.0% 108.6 113.5 96% 95% Conform 9 1 7/12/2006 E 1.5:1 slops 6.1. 10'E of E face. 20'N of 28.5 12.8% 12.0% 107 4 113.5 95% 90% Conform Send 10 1 7/12/2006 E 1.5:1 slope b.l, 10 'E of E face, 40'N of 30.5 13.6% 12.0% 107.3 113.5 95% 90% Conlorm S end n 2 8/9/200S Bent 2 E face 20'N of S end 20.5 12.6% 11.0% 118.9 123.5 9S% 95% Conform 12 2 8/9/200S Bent 2 E (BC6, 40'N of S end 22.0 12.4% 11.0% 116,2 123.5 96% 95% Conform 13 2 8/9/2006 Bent 2 E face, 30' N of S end 23.5 11.9% 11.0% 119.2 123.5 97% 95% Confoim 11 2 6/11/2006 Benl 2, W face, 30' N ot S end 20.5 11.9% 11.0% 118.4 123.5 96% 95% Conform 15 2 8/11/2006 Bent 2, W face, 30" 1^ of S end 22.5 12,4% 11.0% 117.8 123.5 95% 95% Conform 15 2 6/14/2006 Bent 2, W lace, 30' N ol S end 24.5 12,8% 11,0% 118.3 123,5 96% 95% Conform 17 2 e/14/2006 Benl 2. Wface. IS'Nof Send 26.5 11.1% 11.0% 119,6 123.5 97% 95% Confomi 18 2 8/14/2006 Bent 2, E face. 25' N of S end 26.0 11.9% 11.0% 117,6 123-6 95% 95% Conform 19 2 8/15/2006 Benl 2, 10'S of N end 27,5 12.8% 11.0% 118.6 123.5 96% 95% Conform 20 2 6/15/2006 Benl2, 20'SofNend 29.5 11,5% 11.0% 11B.5 123 5 97% 95% Conform 21 2 6/29/2006 Bent 2, N wing wall, IS' S of N end 27.5 12.6% 11.0% 118.1 123.5 96% 95% Conform 22 2 8/29/2006 Bent 2. N wing wall, 15' S of N end 29.5 11.1% 11.0% 119,1 123.5 96% 95% Confonn 23 2 8/29/2006 Bent 2. S wing wall, 15' N of S end 27.5 11.9% 11,0% 119.7 123.5 97% 95% Conform 24 2 8/29/2006 Bent 2, S wing wall, 15' N of S end 29.5 11.9% 11.0% 117.9 123.5 95% 95% Confonn TABLE 2 REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST DATA Contract Numbei Project Name' Location 134834 Carlsbad Blvd. OH Bridge Retrofit Carlsbad. Califomia Test Sample Test Test Location Ele. Moieturs Dry Density (pcf) Relative Compaction Conform Date Test Location Ele. Field 1 OpL Field Maximum Obtained Required Non-Con(omi 25 2 8/30/2006 Bent 2, W side, 30' S of N end of wing wall 25A 2 8/30/2006 Retest #25 26 2 8/30/2006 Bent 2, Wside, 10'Wofface, 45'Sol N end of wingwall 27 2 8/31/2006 Bent 2, W side. 10" W of face, 30' S of N end of wing wali 28 2 8/31/2006 Sent 2. Wside. 10'Wofface. 30'Nof S end ol wing watt 29 2 8/31/2006 Bent 2, Wside. 10'Wof face, cenler ol wall 30 2 9/1/2005 Benl2, Wside, 10'Wofwall, 25'SoftNl end of N wing wall 31 2 9/1/2006 Benl2,Wside, 10'WofwaII, 35'l>iofS end OfS wing wall 32 2 9/1/2006 Bent 2, Wside. 15'Wof wall 40'S of Isl end of N wing wall 33 2 9/1/2006 Bent 2, Wside, 10'W of wall, 25'N of S end of S wing wall 34 2 9/5/2006 Abbot 1 and Bent 2 bf, 14' E of W face Bent 2,60" S of N end ol wing wall 35 2 9/6/2006 E face Bent 2,1,5' E of face, 35' S of N end of wing wall 36 2 9/7/2006 E face Bent 2. 1.5' E of lace, 35' S of N end of wing wall 37 1 9/7/2006 Bent 5,10' E of E face, 10' N of S end 36 1 9/7/2006 Bent 5, 10' E of E face. 10' S of N end 39 I 9/7/2006 Benl 5,10' E of E face, 30' N of S end 40 I 9/8/2005 Bents, 25'E of E face. 15'No( Send ''I 1 9/8/2005 Bent 5, 25'E ol E face, 25'S of N end 42 2 9/11/2006 Bent 2, 2'Wof Wface, 5'N of Send of wing wall 31.5 31.5 11,1% 11.1% 11.0% 11.0% 114.1 120.3 123.5 123.5 92% 97% 05% 96% Nonconfomi Conform 33.5 12.4% 11,0% 116.2 123.5 94% 90% Conform 35.5 11.5% 11.0% 116.4 123.5 94% 90% Conform 35.5 12.4% 11.0% 116.9 123.5 95% 90% Conform 35.5 11.1% 11.0% 117.4 123,5 95% 90% Conform 37,5 11.9% 11.0% 115.1 123,5 93% 90% Conform 37.5 12,8% 11.0% 116.1 123.5 94% 90% Conform 39.5 11.1% 11.0% 114.5 123.5 93% 90% Conform 39.5 12.4% 11.0% 115.1 123.5 93% 90% Conform 41.5 12.4% 11.0% 112.3 123.5 91% 90% Conform 28.0 11.5% 11.0°/o 118.3 123.5 96% 95% Conform 30.0 11,1% 11.0% 119.5 123.5 97% 95% Conform 32.5 13.6% 12.0% 104.8 113.5 92% 90% Conform 34.5 12,8% 12.0% 104.4 113.5 92% 90% Confoim 36.5 14.1% 12.0% 103.3 113.5 91% 90% Conform 38.5 13.6% 12.0% 105.5 113.5 93% 90% Confo/m 40.5 12.4% 12.0% 104.9 113.5 92% 90% Confomi 35,5 11.9% 11.0% 118.1 123,5 96% 95% Conform TABLE 2 REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST DATA Conlract Nomber; Project Nsme Location. 134834 Carlsbad Btvd. OH Bridge Retrofit Carlsbad, California Test U Sample « Test Oate Test Location Ele, Moisture Dry Density (pcf) Relative Compaction Conform Non-ConloiTit Test U Sample « Test Oate Test Location Ele, Field Opt. Flaid MaKimum Obtained Required Conform Non-ConloiTit 43 2 9/11 /2006 Benl 2, 2' W of W face, 5'N of S end of 37.5 12,4% 11.0% 119.0 123.5 96% 95% Conform wing watt 44 2 9/11/2006 Bent 2, 10' W of W faca, 5'N of S end of 39.5 111% 11.0% 119.8 123.5 97% 90% Conform wing wall 45 2 9/11/2006 Sent 2, S' E of abbutment, center wall 41.5 11,5% 11.0% 118.2 123.5 96% 90% Conform 46 2 9/11/2006 Benl 2, r N of W face. IS' S of N end ol FSG 11.1% 11.0% 120,3 123.5 97% 95% Conform wing wall 47 2 9/11/2006 Bent 2, r Wof Wface. 5'Nof Send of FSG n.9% 11,0% 119.6 123.5 97% 95% Conform wing wall 48 2 9/12/2006 W 1.5:1 stope. 5' S of S end, Bent2 wing FG 12.6% 11.0% 112,2 123.5 91% 90% Conform wall 49 2 9/12/2006 W 1,5:1 stope, ID' N of S end. Bent 2 FG 11.9% 11.0% . 113.4 123.5 92% 90% Conform wing wall SO 2 9/12/2006 W 1.5:1 slope. 30' N of S end. Benl 2 FG 12,4% 11.0% 113.6 123.5 92% 90% Conform wing wall 51 2 91/12/2006 W 1.5:1 slope, center wall, Bent 2, 15'W FG 11.9% 11.0% 111.9 123.5 91% 90% Conform of wesl face 52 2 9/13/2006 W 1.5:1 slope. 50' S Of N end, Bent 2 FG 12.4% 11.0% 1127 123.5 91% 90% Conform wing wall 53 2 9/13/2006 W 1.5:1 slope. 20' S of N end, Bent2, 10' FG 11.9% 11.0% 114.3 123.5 63% 90% Conform E of E lace 90% Conform 56 1 9/13/2006 W 1,5:1 slope. 15' S of N end, Benl 5,10' FG 13.2% 12.0% 105.0 113.5 93% 90% Conform E of E face Conform SS 1 9/13/2006 w 1.5-1 slope, 20'NofSend, Bents, 10' FG 12.8% 12.0% 104.1 113.5 92% 90% Conform E of E face Conform City of Carlsbad 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad. CA 02008 .'Attention: Mr. Duane Soileau Subject: Laboratory Test Report No. 1 Projecl: OH Bridge Retrofit Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad. CA BUREAU VERITAS May 26. 2006 Contract No.: 134834 RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2D06 t^***^'^! MAI DIVl.'ilil^L Dear Mr. Soileau, Submitted herewith are the results of laboratory testing performed on an on-site material samples being used as fill at the above referenced project site. It should be noted that test results contained herein are for geotechnical purposes and do nof reflect compliance with Uniied States Environmental Protection Agency and State of California regulations regarding environmental concerns. These laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted standards and do not constitute engineering opinions or project control. It is the responsibility ofthe contractor to .schedule retests or re-inspections of any areas that do not meet projecl specifications as a result of lhe attached information. TE-USL neither controls nor supervises the work at the site. We are not responsibJe for errors and omissions of the contractor, nor for the contractor's failure lo keep the vvork on schedule or carry it out in accordance with the project plans, specifications, and all applicable codes. Respectfully submitted, TESTING ENGINEERS U.S. Labs, Inc. Nick Tracy, EIT Staff Engineer Nil.VO hisiribulKin: (I) AddrcNsec (1)1 ickl 1-ilc Van W. Olin, GE 2578 Geotechnical Department Manager Testing Engineers San Diego, Inc. ' ittuvtt'i \ tTfttif t..'/yiij>ttiiy Oiiiil, Suite Id !Vno. (...V')2! II h v.\v.;;<.bi:r---.UU'c.'in» CLIT. Particle Size Distribution Report 500 100 10 GRAIN SIZE - mm 0.1 0.01 0.001 % COBBLES j % GRAVEL <%SAND %SILT % CLAY 0.0 1 0.0 92.9 7.1 SIEVE PERCEMT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCEf^T (X=NO) iM 100.0 #10 98.8 #20 91.9 82.5 m 55.4 »m 17.5 noo 7.1 SotI DescriPtton Vellowish-Brown Poorly graded sand with sili PL= •85= 0.467 030= 0.181 Cij= 2.93 Atterberg Umte LL= Coeffietents D60= 0.267 Di5= 0.J27 Cc= 1.35 Oassfflcation AASHTO= Pl= 050= 0-233 Dio= 009IO USCS= SP-SM Remarte TESD NO. 17259 // SAND EQUIVALENT = 23 (ao specificalioQ provided) Sample No.: 17259 Source of Sample: Location: Abbutment 5 spoils of footing overex., Spl #1 Oater 5/11/06 ElevJDepth: TESTING ENGINEERS Client: City of Carlsbad Project: Carlsbad Blvd OH Bridge Retrofit ProjectNo: SDI34834 Plate COMPACTION TEST REPORT Curve No.: 1 ProjectNo.: SD134834 Project: Carlsbad Blvd OH Bridge Retrofir Location: Abbutment 5 spoils of footing overex,, Spl #1 ElevTDepth: Remarks: TESD NO. 17259 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Description: Yellowisb-Brown Poorly graded sand with silt Date: 5/11/06 Classifications - Nat Moist = Liquid Limit = %> No.4= 0.0% USCS: SP-SM AASHTO: Sp.G.= 2J28 Plasticity Index % .< No.200 •= 7.1% 140 130 120 1 110 to c <o TO Q 100 90 80 70 TEST RESULTS Maximum dry density = 113.5 pcf Optimmn moisture = 12 % Test specification: ASTM D ) 557-91 Procedure A Modified ASTM D ) 557-91 Procedure A Modified 100% SATURATION CURVES FOR SPEC. GRAV. EQUAL TO: 2.8 2.7 ?fi 1 ~ 2.8 2.7 ?fi 1 1 i 1 t t. •. .. 1 1 i J ! 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 IN 1 i 1 I ! 1 ! ' ! ! 1 .1 ! ; 1 T i • 1 ( 1 ; • •• 1 1 • rr tj ! ! ! "TTTl 1 1 1 ! 1 ; i 1 • \ i 1 ! 1 1 i ! i 1 [• i 1 1 i • i ! \ ! i 1 i 1 ! I i i '-• —i ~ . i ' ! 1 ! i-! i f i ! :J 1 i, .1 '. ' I I ! l_ 1 •TTV ! : i i i"' ; 1 ! • M 1 1 •Tl - LJ i i ! i : ! ' i : 1 ' ' .' ' ' ; 1 1 •Tl i i 1 ! M 1 '- ; ' i I ' ' • - ; f [ ' t \ . ! 1 I * — 1 i : i 1 t : 1 , [ —••—r—1—?^ < i : i i ' ' • - ; f [ ' 1 I • • ' — ! 1 : .1 • : 1 .' i i i H - 1 1 • -; i ! . ] . i ' ; ' J. t 1 -'r--r f-f t f • -t • : 1 * 1 ] i ! V•^ 1 J. t 1 -'r--r f-. 1 • 1 ^ .'. r V ; i 1 ; i 10 15 20 25 Water content. % 30 -TESTING ENGINEERS- 35 Plate 40 Particle Size Distribution Report g § I I I 500 100 10 GRAIN SIZE - mm 0.1 0.01 0.001 % COBBLES % GRAVEL %SAND % SILT 1 %CLAY 0.0 0.0 85.2 14.8 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT p(=NO) #4 100.0 mo 99.8 #20 94.8 #40 65.7 #60 29.6 #100 18.9 #200 14.8 Soil DescriDtion Orangish-Brown Silty sand PL= Attertjera Limits LL= Pl= 085= 0.630 030= 0.252 Cu= CoefHcIents 060= 0.391 Oi5= 0.0778 Cc= 050= 0-341 Dl0= USCS= SM Classification AASHTO= Remarte TESD NO. 17260 // SAND EQUIVALENT = 20 (no ^Kcificalioa provided) Sampl&No.: 17260 Source of Sample: Location: Abuttment I spoils of Overex.. Sample HI Date: 5/11/06 ElevJDepth: TESTING ENGINEERS Client: City of Cartsbad Project: Carbbad Blvd OH Bridge Retrofit ProjectNo: SD134^34 Plate COMPACTION TEST REPORT Curve No.: 2 ProjectNo.: SDI34834 Project Carjsbad Blvd OH Bridge Retrofit Location: Abuttment 1 spoils of Overex., Sample #2 EtevVDeptli: Remarks: SD 17260 Date: 5/11/06 IMATERIAL DESCRIPTiON Description: Orangisb-Brown Silty sand Classifications- USCS: SM Nat Moist = Liquid Umit = %>No>l= 0.0% AASHTO: Sp.G.= 2.53 Plasticity index = %< No.200 = 14.8% TEST RESULTS Maximum dry density = 123.5 pcf Optimtmi moisture =11% Test specification: ASTM D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified 100% SATURATION CURVES FOR SPEC. GRAV. EQUAL TO: 10 15 20 25 Water content. % 30 -TESTING ENGINEERS- 35 Plate 40 EXPANSION INDEX TEST Date: May 25,2006 JobNo: SD 134834 CUent: CITY OF CARLSBAD Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RepoTtNo: 9000 ENGINEER: VAN OLIN. GEOHECHNICAL ENGINEER REVIEWED BY; NICK TRACY, STAFF ENGINEER PROJECT: SAMPLED BY: SUBMITTED BY: PROCEDURE: CARLSBAJ> BLVD OH BRIDGE RETROFIT TESD DATE: 5/11/06 TESD DATE: 5/11/06 ASTM D4829 Lab Number Sample Identification / Location Initial Moisture Content, % Final Moisture Content, % Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % Expansien Index Potential Expansion 17259 17260 Abbutment 5 spoils Abbutment 1 spoils bf footing overex. of overex. 9.5 20.9 112.2 51.2 I Very Low 10.5 18.6 106.0 48.0 4 Very Low DIRECT SHEAR TEST CO Q- W W UJ Dd \~ ifi a: < LU X t>3 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 (3540 psf 1321 psf" ^ 1947 paf 12 3 4 NQRMAL STRESS ^KSR LOCATION: On-.sil« LAB NUMBER: 17259 CLASSIFICATION: SP-SM COHESION: C =450(psl) FRICTION ANGLE: 37" SCALE:=>1:10 Testirig Engineers - U.S. Labs 7S95 Convoy Court. Suhe 18 San Oiego, CA 921 f 1 Title: Direct Shear Test Project: Carlsbad Blvd. OH Bridge Retrofit Dnwn: NJT ContmctNo: ^2A&Z^ Date-. May 26. 2006 Figure No: Zi^'X DIRECT SHEAR TEST 6000 5000 (0 ^ 4000 to CO UJ Ql h- £0 a: X CO 3000 2000 1000 • 4156^1^ < > 3450 psf 2 3 4 NORMAL STRESS (KSF^ FRICTION ANGLE: 35° SCALE:=1:10 LOCATION: On .silf-. LAB NUMBER: 17260 CLASSIFICATION: SM COHESION: C = 1450{psf) Mai) Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs 789S Convoy Coun, Suite ie Miiruiii San Diego. CA 92111 Title: Direct Shear Test Projecl: Carlsbad Blvd. OH Bridge Retrofit Dr*rn: NJT OontreCNo: ^34934 Oate: May 26, 2006 Figure Mo: , — _ u